B-171221, JAN 11, 1971

B-171221, JAN 11, 1971

STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS ALLOWING IN PART REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS INCURRED BY E. JACK SPIELMAN INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION FROM SANTA MONICA, CALIF., TO EDWARDS, CALIF. IF CLAIMANT MOVES HOUSEHOLD GOODS TO A COMMERCIAL STORAGE AREA AND THEN TO RELATIVES' RESIDENCE IN LOCALITY OF OLD DUTY STATION, SUCH MOVEMENT MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS BEGINNING OF SHIPMENT WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE TWO YEARS SPECIFIED FOR BEGINNING SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN SECTION 1.3D, BOB CIR. NO. A-56. THEREFORE WHEN GOODS WERE FINALLY MOVED TO CLAIM ANT'S RESIDENCE AT NEW DUTY STATION AFTER TWO YEARS FROM EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT. HOWEVER CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN STORAGE OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS, BECAUSE IT WAS INCURRED WITHIN THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION, AND ALSO FOR THE MOVEMENT OF HIS EFFECTS FROM THE WAREHOUSE TO RELATIVE'S RESIDENCE WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED THE FINAL DESTINATION OF THE EFFECTS UNDER SECTION 6.3, BOB CIR., NO. A- 56.

TO MR. JOHN K. YOSHIDA:

THIS WILL REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 29, 1970, REQUESTING AN ADVANCE DECISION ON THE PROPRIETY OF PAYMENT OF A VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,267.54 SUBMITTED BY MR. E. JACK SPIELMAN FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO HIS TRANSFER OF OFFICIAL STATION FROM SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA, TO EDWARDS, CALIFORNIA, EFFECTIVE MARCH 4, 1968.

THE ITEMS FOR WHICH MR. SPIELMAN CLAIMS REIMBURSEMENT ON HIS VOUCHER ARE: (1) $807.40 FOR SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (MR. SPIELMAN'S FORMER PLACE OF RESIDENCE), TO LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA (HIS NEW PLACE OF RESIDENCE); (2) $449.45 FOR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF 8,900 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS FOR 60 DAYS; AND (3) $10.69 FOR MILEAGE AND PER DIEM FOR THE EMPLOYEE'S WIFE INCIDENT TO HER TRANSPORTATION FROM LOS ANGELES TO LANCASTER ON JULY 30, 1970.

AS NOTED ABOVE, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF MR. SPIELMAN'S TRANSFER WAS MARCH 4, 1968. HOWEVER, HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE NOT MOVED TO HIS NEW OFFICIAL STATION UNTIL JULY 30, 1970, THE SAME DATE MRS. SPIELMAN TRAVELED TO LANCASTER, OR APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER. DURING THE INTERIM THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE STORED AT LOS ANGELES. THE MAJOR QUANTITY, OR 8,900 POUNDS, WAS STORED FROM SEPTEMBER 9, 1969, TO DECEMBER 12, 1969, IN A COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE, THE REMAINDER BEING STORED DURING THE SAME PERIOD AT THE RESIDENCE OF MR. SPIELMAN'S DAUGHTER IN LOS ANGELES. ON DECEMBER 12, 1969, THE 8,900-POUND QUANTITY WAS ALSO TRANSFERRED TO THE LOS ANGELES RESIDENCE FROM COMMERCIAL STORAGE.

YOU QUESTION WHETHER REIMBURSEMENT MAY BE MADE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EFFECTS FROM LOS ANGELES TO LANCASTER, NOT IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF EFFECTS IN ONE LOT FROM THE LAST OFFICIAL DUTY STATION TO THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION. ALSO, YOU ASK WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO THE MOVEMENT AND STORAGE OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AREA.

YOUR QUESTIONS ARISE IN LIGHT OF SUBSECTION 1.3D OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR A-56 WHICH REQUIRES, AS A CONDITION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF RELOCATION EXPENSES THAT: "THE MAXIMUM TIME FOR BEGINNING ALLOWABLE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION WILL NOT EXCEED TWO YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRANSFER *** " WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS NOT PERTINENT HERE. SINCE THE REGULATION DOES NOT STATE A MAXIMUM LENGTH OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION MUST BE COMPLETED, YOU EXPRESS DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE MOVEMENT TO STORAGE OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS ON SEPTEMBER 9, 1969, OR WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD FOLLOWING TRANSFER, CONSTITUTES THE BEGINNING OF TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION, THUS ENTITLING THE EMPLOYEE TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THOSE HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM THE OLD TO THE NEW STATION IN JULY 1970.

WE HAVE HELD UNDER FACTS SIMILAR TO THOSE IN MR. SPIELMAN'S CASE THAT THE MERE MOVEMENT OF EFFECTS FROM RESIDENCE TO A POINT OF LOCAL STORAGE IN THE SAME CITY MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS THE BEGINNING OF A SHIPMENT WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE TWO YEARS SPECIFIED FOR BEGINNING SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS. 29 COMP. GEN. 100; B-94377, JULY , 1950. NOR DO WE REGARD THE MOVEMENT OF THE EFFECTS FROM THE COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSE TO THE DAUGHTER'S GARAGE AS THE BEGINNING OF TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEW STATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF MR. SPIELMAN'S CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HIS HOUSEHOLD GOODS FROM LOS ANGELES TO LANCASTER. LIKEWISE THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL OF MRS. SPIELMAN TO LANCASTER IN JULY 1970, WHICH YOU DO NOT SEEM TO QUESTION, MAY NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE OF BEING OUTSIDE THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.

HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCIDENT TO THE STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IN LOS ANGELES FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS, WE BELIEVE THIS WAS AN EXPENSE INCURRED INCIDENT TO THE TRANSFER. IT WAS INCURRED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD, AND, THEREFORE, MAY BE REIMBURSED AT THE COMMUTED RATE. 29 COMP. GEN. 133 (1949); B-153561, MAY 11, 1964; B-149021, JUNE 18, 1962; B-149582, AUGUST 23, 1962. THE WEIGHT TO BE USED IN SUCH COMPUTATION IS THE MAXIMUM OF 11,000 POUNDS. ALTHOUGH WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT MR. SPIELMAN PAID HIS DAUGHTER ANY STORAGE FOR THE HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INITIALLY PLACED IN HER GARAGE (PRESUMABLY AMOUNTING TO AT LEAST 2,100 POUNDS) THE EXPENSE OF STORING THE 8,900 POUNDS EXCEEDS THE COMMUTATION ALLOWANCE ON 11,000 POUNDS. THEREFORE, ALLOWANCE OF THE COMMUTED RATE FOR 11,000 POUNDS APPEARS PROPER. MOREOVER, WE BELIEVE MR. SPIELMAN IS ENTITLED TO THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $110.23 WHICH HE EXPENDED FOR MOVING HIS EFFECTS FROM THE WAREHOUSE TO HIS DAUGHTER'S GARAGE ON DECEMBER 12, 1969. THIS IS ON THE BASIS THAT THE COMMUTED RATE FOR STORAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE SUCH ITEM AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT THE DAUGHTER'S GARAGE IS TO BE VIEWED AS THE FINAL DESTINATION OF THE EFFECTS UNDER THE REGULATIONS AS APPLIED HEREIN. SEE SECTION 6.3 OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56. THE CHARGE OF $110.23 APPEARS TO BE LESS THAN THE COMMUTED RATE.

THE VOUCHER IS RETURNED HEREWITH FOR HANDLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.