B-167275, AUG. 8, 1969
Highlights
SINCE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN REIMBURSED FOR BAGGAGE SHIPMENT TO ONE ADDRESS AT NEW DUTY STATION THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR FURTHER SHIPMENT. EVEN THOUGH EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHIPMENT TO ULTIMATE ADDRESS SINCE EMPLOYEE DID NOT TRAVEL BY THAT ROUTE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PAYMENT. YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM LIMA. WHEN THE BAGGAGE WAS DELIVERED TO YOU IN ALEXANDRIA ON AUGUST 14. SINCE THE SHIPMENT FROM NEW JERSEY TO ALEXANDRIA EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT ALLOWANCE (300 POUNDS FOR EACH AUTHORIZED TRAVELER) YOU WERE REIMBURSED FOR THE SHIPMENT OF 1. YOU WERE DENIED ANY REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE SHIPMENT FROM ALEXANDRIA TO BETHESDA. OUR VIEW IS THAT ONCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS REIMBURSED YOU FOR THE EXPENSE OF SHIPMENT OF YOUR BAGGAGE TO ONE ADDRESS AT THE NEW DUTY STATION THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FURTHER SHIPMENT OF YOUR BAGGAGE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE INCIDENT TO OCCUPANCY OF PERMANENT QUARTERS AT THE POST OF DUTY.
B-167275, AUG. 8, 1969
CIVIL PAY - TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE DECISION TO STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXCESS BAGGAGE SHIPPED FROM TEMPORARY LODGING TO PERMANENT LODGING. SINCE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN REIMBURSED FOR BAGGAGE SHIPMENT TO ONE ADDRESS AT NEW DUTY STATION THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR FURTHER SHIPMENT. EVEN THOUGH EMPLOYEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHIPMENT TO ULTIMATE ADDRESS SINCE EMPLOYEE DID NOT TRAVEL BY THAT ROUTE THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PAYMENT.
TO MR. WILLIAM P. STEDMAN, JR.:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 11, 1969, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 3, 1969, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF SHIPPING YOUR EFFECTS FROM ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, TO BETHESDA, MARYLAND.
BY TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION DATED JULY 11, 1968, YOU WERE AUTHORIZED TO TRAVEL FROM LIMA, PERU, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY YOUR WIFE AND TWO SONS. THE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION AUTHORIZED LEAVE OF ABSENCE AT CATONSVILLE, MARYLAND, AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. HOWEVER, YOU DID NOT TAKE SUCH LEAVE BUT TRAVELED DIRECT TO ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, WHERE YOU MOVED INTO AN APARTMENT WHICH YOU OCCUPIED FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU SHIPPED 1,440 POUNDS OF EFFECTS (BAGGAGE) FROM NEWARK CONSISTING OF 10 PIECES. HOWEVER, WHEN THE BAGGAGE WAS DELIVERED TO YOU IN ALEXANDRIA ON AUGUST 14, 1968, YOU APPARENTLY ONLY RETAINED FOUR PIECES THEREOF AND AUTHORIZED THE RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY TO DELIVER THE BALANCE OF SIX PIECES (1,290 POUNDS) TO YOUR ADDRESS IN BETHESDA, MARYLAND. SINCE THE SHIPMENT FROM NEW JERSEY TO ALEXANDRIA EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT ALLOWANCE (300 POUNDS FOR EACH AUTHORIZED TRAVELER) YOU WERE REIMBURSED FOR THE SHIPMENT OF 1,200 POUNDS OF EFFECTS (300 X 4); ALSO, YOU WERE DENIED ANY REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE SHIPMENT FROM ALEXANDRIA TO BETHESDA.
WE FIND NOTHING IN THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AUTHORIZING A FURTHER SHIPMENT OF BAGGAGE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM A TEMPORARY LODGING ADDRESS IN THE VICINITY OF A NEW OFFICIAL STATION TO A PERMANENT LODGING ADDRESS. OUR VIEW IS THAT ONCE THE GOVERNMENT HAS REIMBURSED YOU FOR THE EXPENSE OF SHIPMENT OF YOUR BAGGAGE TO ONE ADDRESS AT THE NEW DUTY STATION THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE THE REIMBURSEMENT OF FURTHER SHIPMENT OF YOUR BAGGAGE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE INCIDENT TO OCCUPANCY OF PERMANENT QUARTERS AT THE POST OF DUTY.
WHILE YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR BAGGAGE, WITHIN THE WEIGHT LIMITATION BY WAY OF CATONSVILLE, MARYLAND, SUCH FACT CANNOT SERVE AS A BASIS FOR ALLOWING YOUR CLAIM SINCE YOU DID NOT TRAVEL BY THAT ROUTE.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR EFFECTS INCIDENT TO THE CHANGE OF YOUR RESIDENCE AT YOUR DUTY STATION IS SUSTAINED.