B-238109, Apr 25, 1990
Highlights
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Overseas personnel - Household goods - Shipment - Privately-owned vehicles DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. Inman was an employee of the Navy Department and stationed in London. He was transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs for duty at its activity in Austin. Are found in chapter 2. It is that issue which was addressed in our decision of February 17. We stated therein that unless the FTR was revised to allow return shipment of a POV under the circumstances which occurred here. There was no authority to reimburse those costs. Inman's claim is sustained.
B-238109, Apr 25, 1990
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Relocation - Overseas personnel - Household goods - Shipment - Privately-owned vehicles DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. To locate substantive decisions addressing this issue, refer to decisions indexed under the above listed index entry.
James A. Inman:
Mr. Inman was an employee of the Navy Department and stationed in London, England. While there, he purchased a privately owned vehicle (POV). March 1987, he was transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs for duty at its activity in Austin, Texas. Incident to that transfer he shipped the POV to the United States. The agency disallowed his claim for reimbursement of those shipping costs. Mr. Inman has appealed that disallowance, based on our decision B-230448, Feb. 17, 1989, 68 Comp.Gen. 258.
The regulations implementing the law governing this matter (5 U.S.C. Sec. 5727 (1988)), are found in chapter 2, part 10 of the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR). Paragraph 2-10.3a of the FTR authorizes the transportation of a POV to an overseas duty station and paragraph 2 10.3b authorizes the return shipment to the United States of any vehicle so transported, but does not authorize an employee to ship a POV from an overseas duty station where he had not initially shipped a POV to that overseas location.
It is that issue which was addressed in our decision of February 17, 1989. We stated therein that unless the FTR was revised to allow return shipment of a POV under the circumstances which occurred here, there was no authority to reimburse those costs. Since paragraph 2 10.3b of the FTR has not been revised to so authorize (see also 302 10.3b of the FTR (1989 Edition, May 10, 1989)), the disallowance of Mr. Inman's claim is sustained.