Claim for Relief From Liability

An advance decision was requested concerning the proper disposal of an overpayment to an employee which occurred from the erroneous authorization of travel and transportation expenses at the time of her appointment by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The employee terminated her employment in Pennsylvania and accepted an appointment with NRC in Texas. The appointment letter stated that certain travel and moving expenses could be reimbursed. NRC advanced the employee monies for travel expenses and for the transportation and storage of household goods. When the employee submitted her voucher in connection with the expenses she incurred in her move, NRC discovered that the position to which she had been appointed was not listed as a manpower-shortage position and that NRC had erred in making travel advances. Legislation and regulations authorize reimbursement of travel and transportation expenses to those employees appointed to manpower-shortage positions. The employee objected to the NRC collection action to recover the advances. NRC asked whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel against the Government might be applicable to this case; alternatively, NRC recommended relief for the employee under the Meritorious Claims Act. In a prior decision, GAO held that equitable estoppel does not bar recovery by the Government from its employees in cases where statutes and regulations control the entitlements regardless of the erroneous actions of its agents. Regarding the request that the employee's claim be referred to Congress under the Meritorious Claims Act, the cases GAO has reported for the consideration of Congress generally have involved circumstances of an unusual nature which are unlikely to constitute a recurring problem. To report a particular claim to Congress when similar equities exist, are likely to exist, or are likely to arise with respect to others, would constitute preferential treatment. GAO did not consider this claim to have elements of equity of an unusual nature which are unlikely to recur. Thus, GAO did not believe it would be appropriate to submit a recommendation to Congress on this claim under the Act. Accordingly, the monies advanced to the employee should be recovered.