B-36564, NOVEMBER 10, 1943, 23 COMP. GEN. 352

B-36564, NOVEMBER 10, 1943, 23 COMP. GEN. 352

TRAVELING EXPENSES - BETWEEN HOME AND TEMPORARY DUTY STATION; PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS ENTITLEMENT FOR SHORT JOURNEYS THE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHOSE TRAVEL TO AND FROM A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, BEGAN AND TERMINATED AT HIS HOME, WASHINGTON, D.C., RATHER THAN AT HIS OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, MAY BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED, NOT TO EXCEED THOSE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD THE TRAVEL BEGUN AND TERMINATED AT HIS OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS, WITHOUT DEDUCTION BEING MADE FOR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S HOME AND OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS. 22 COMP. GEN. 572, AMPLIFIED. AN EMPLOYEE WHO WAS INVOLUNTARILY REQUIRED TO TRAVEL DAILY BETWEEN HIS HOME (NOT WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION), AND A TEMPORARY STATION WHICH WAS WITHIN COMMUTING DISTANCE OF HIS HOME BUT NOT WITHIN SUCH DISTANCE OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION) IN ORDER TO SAVE THE PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE HAD HE BEEN ALLOWED TO REMAIN AT THE TEMPORARY STATION FOR THE PERIOD OF DUTY THERE, MAY BE ALLOWED THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION FOR SUCH REPEATED TRAVEL, WHICH COSTS ARE LESS THAN THE COSTS OF TRAVEL BETWEEN HIS PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY STATIONS, AS WELL AS LESS THAN THE SUBSISTENCE COMMUTATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE. WHERE, IN CONNECTION WITH AN EMPLOYEE'S JOURNEY INVOLVING COMBINED RAIL AND BOAT TRAVEL IN EXCESS OF TWO HOURS, THE RAIL JOURNEY TO BOARD THE BOAT IS LESS THAN TWO HOURS IN DURATION, THE COST OF A PULLMAN SEAT ON THE TRAIN MAY NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 13 (A) (2) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED, FOR THE ALLOWANCE TO OFFICIAL TRAVELERS OF "ONE SEAT IN A SLEEPING OR PARLOR-CAR WHEN THE CONTINUOUS RAIL JOURNEY IS MORE THAN TWO HOURS IN DURATION* * * PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT A STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING TRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN INTERRUPTION OF THE JOURNEY.'

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO THE FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATOR, NOVEMBER 10, 1943:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 21. 1943, AS FOLLOWS:

IN AUDIT OF TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNTS OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HAVE ARISEN IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATION OF THE RULE STATED IN DECISION B-30297 DATED DECEMBER 21, 1942, AND IN CONNECTION WITH INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. 401 DATED OCTOBER 9, 1942. ACCORDINGLY, THERE ARE TRANSMITTED HEREWITH FOR DECISION THE FOLLOWING TRAVEL VOUCHERS:

PAYEE: PERIOD AMOUNT

LELAND C. RUMSEY-------------------1MAY 2-14,1943 $2.54

GEO. P. SMITH, JR.----------------1MAY 3-17,1943 $2.54

EDMOND J. SABATINI-----------------1MAY 1-31,1943 $19.77

LEW E. WALLACE---------------------1APRIL 13,1943 $1.59

THE ABOVE ACCOUNTS INCLUDE CERTIFIED COPIES OF APPLICABLE TRAVEL ORDERS AND CITATIONS TO RELATED PAID VOUCHERS.

THE QUESTION INVOLVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE FIRST THREE ACCOUNTS LISTED ABOVE IS WHETHER THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE TRAVELER'S RESIDENCE AND OFFICIAL STATION SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS CLAIM WHERE TRAVEL TO A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION IS PERFORMED FROM THE TRAVELER'S RESIDENCE RATHER THAN HIS OFFICIAL STATION.

IT APPEARS FROM DECISION B-30297 DATED DECEMBER 31, 1942, THAT NO TRAVEL EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE IF TRAVEL FROM RESIDENCE TO A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION INVOLVES A SHORTER DISTANCE THAN THAT FROM THE TRAVELER'S RESIDENCE TO HIS OFFICIAL STATION, BUT IS IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE COST OF TRAVEL TO THE OFFICIAL STATION SHOULD BE DEDUCTED IF THE DISTANCE TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION IS GREATER THAN THAT TO THE OFFICIAL STATION, AND IF THE TRAVELER DOES NOT PROCEED FROM HIS RESIDENCE TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION THENCE TO THE OFFICIAL STATION AND RETURN BY WAY OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION. THE BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF THE COSTS OF TRAVEL TO OFFICIAL STATION WAS NOT INDICATED IN YOUR DECISION, BUT IT HAS BEEN ASSUMED THAT SUCH COSTS SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE MODE AND CLASS OF TRANSPORTATION ACTUALLY UTILIZED BY THE TRAVELER IN REPORTING TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION, IT BEING IMPRACTICAL TO ATTEMPT TO EFFECT SETTLEMENT ON THE BASIS OF A MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION ASSUMED TO BE UTILIZED BY THE TRAVELER IN DAILY TRAVEL BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND OFFICIAL STATION. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT ADJUSTMENT ON THE FORMER BASIS USUALLY RESULTS IN A DEDUCTION, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH EXCEEDS THE COST OF REPORTING TO THE OFFICIAL STATION SINCE SUCH TRAVEL FREQUENTLY INVOLVES ONLY COMMUTATION OR OTHER NOMINAL COSTS.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT FREQUENTLY THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT RELIEVED OF THE COST WHICH NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN TRAVEL FROM RESIDENCE TO OFFICIAL STATION AS A RESULT OF THE FACT THAT THE UNUSED RIDES ON THE COMMUTATION TICKETS HAVE NO REDEMPTIVE VALUE. IF THE COST OF TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND OFFICIAL STATION IS TO BE DEDUCTED IN ALL CASES WHERE TRAVEL IS PERFORMED FROM RESIDENCE TO A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION, WHETHER TRAVEL TO SUCH TEMPORARY DUTY STATION IS PERFORMED DAILY OR WHETHER THE ABSENCE EXTENDS OVER SEVERAL DAYS, IT APPEARS THAT THE COST OF SUCH TRAVEL SHOULD BE DEDUCTED NOT ONLY ON THE DAYS ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE ACTUALLY PERFORMS TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND TEMPORARY DUTY STATION BUT ALSO ON ANY INTERVENING DAYS WHICH THE EMPLOYEE SPENDS AT THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION SINCE PRESUMABLY THAT EXPENSE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE TRAVELER HAD SERVICE BEEN PERFORMED AT THE OFFICIAL STATION RATHER THAN THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION. IN EITHER CASE, HOWEVER, THE RULE IS DIFFICULT TO APPLY AND APPEARS TO BE INEQUITABLE IN CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT INCURS NO EXPENSES IN EXCESS OF THOSE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD THE TRAVEL BEEN PERFORMED FROM THE TRAVELER'S OFFICIAL STATION.

IT WILL BE APPRECIATED IF YOU WILL INDICATE IN YOUR REPLY WHETHER COST OF TRAVEL BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND OFFICIAL STATION SHOULD BE DEDUCTED IN ALL CASES WHERE TRAVEL IS PERFORMED FROM RESIDENCE TO A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION. IF NOT, UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD SUCH DEDUCTION BE MADE AND ON WHAT BASIS SHOULD COST BE DETERMINED?

IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACCOUNT OF MR. SABATINI, IT APPEARS THAT PHILADELPHIA SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE HIS RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING THE RULE STATED IN DECISION B-30297 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT MR. SABATINI DOES NOT ACTUALLY COMMUTE BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA AND TRENTON WHEN PERFORMING SERVICE AT THE LATTER POINT. MOREOVER, THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA AND WILMINGTON IS LESS THAN THE PER IDEM ALLOWANCE TO WHICH THE TRAVELER IS ENTITLED.

THE LAST ACCOUNT LISTED ABOVE INVOLVES THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER COST OF A PULLMAN SEAT IS ALLOWABLE IN CONNECTION WITH A RAIL JOURNEY OF LESS THAN TWO HOURS WHEN COMBINED WITH TRAVEL BY BOAT WHICH EXTENDS THE TOTAL TRAVEL TIME BEYOND THE TWO-HOUR TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. 401, DATED OCTOBER 8, 1942. THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR PROVIDES THAT SUCH CHARGES ARE ALLOWABLE "WHEN THE CONTINUOUS RAIL JOURNEY IS MORE THAN TWO HOURS IN DURATION AND WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT A STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING TRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN INTERRUPTION IN THE JOURNEY.'

THE ABOVE PROVISION APPARENTLY INDICATES THAT THE ONLY CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH A STOP IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN INTERRUPTION IN THE JOURNEY IS IN CASES WHERE THE STOP IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHANGING TRAINS. THERE APPEARS, HOWEVER, TO BE LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING TRAINS AND A STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING FROM BOAT TO TRAIN.

IT APPEARS FROM THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED BY LELAND C. RUMSEY THAT HE TRAVELED FROM HIS RESIDENCE, WASHINGTON, D.C., TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND RETURNED TO WASHINGTON, RATHER THAN TRAVELING FROM AND TO BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, HIS OFFICIAL STATION, AND THAT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXAMINATION OF HIS VOUCHER NO. 2567654, PAID JUNE 30, 1943, THE AMOUNT OF $2.54, REPRESENTING THE COST OF A FIRST-CLASS ROUND TRIP FARE FROM WASHINGTON TO BALTIMORE, WAS DEDUCTED FOR THE REASON THAT TRAVEL BEGAN AND TERMINATED AT HIS RESIDENCE. IN MAKING SAID DEDUCTION THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE APPARENTLY CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 31, 1942, B-30297, 22 COMP. GEN. 572, AS REQUIRING IN EACH AND EVERY CASE A DEDUCTION EQUIVALENT TO "THE COST OF TRAVEL WHICH WOULD HAVE NORMALLY BEEN INCURRED IN THE DAILY TRAVEL BETWEEN THE TRAVELER'S RESIDENCE AND OFFICIAL STATION AND THE OFFICIAL STATION AND TRAVELER'S RESIDENCE.' IN HIS RECLAIM VOUCHER FOR THE AMOUNT SO DEDUCTED, MR. RUMSEY STATED:

WHEN I LEFT FROM MY RESIDENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON MY TRAVEL TO CHICAGO, ILL., IT WAS ON SUNDAY NIGHT, MAY 2, 1943. SINCE THIS WAS A SUNDAY, MY PRESENCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AT MY OFFICIAL STATION ON THAT DAY, SO THAT I NECESSARILY HAD TO START MY TRAVEL FROM MY RESIDENCE. ON SATURDAY, MAY 1, I HAD PERFORMED MY REGULAR DAILY TRAVEL FROM MY OFFICIAL STATION IN BALTIMORE TO MY HOME IN WASHINGTON.

I RETURNED FROM CHICAGO, ILL., ON FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 14, 1943. SINCE THE B AND O TRAIN PASSES THROUGH WASHINGTON BEFORE COMING TO BALTIMORE, I ARRANGED TO STOP AT MY RESIDENCE TO LEAVE MY BAGGAGE THERE. I THEN PROCEEDED FROM MY RESIDENCE TO MY OFFICIAL STATION IN TIME FOR BUSINESS.

THE COST OF TRAVEL FROM BALTIMORE TO WASHINGTON ON 5/1 AND FROM WASHINGTON TO BALTIMORE ON 5/14 IS NOT SHOWN ON MY VOUCHER SINCE IT WAS PERFORMED AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT AND WAS PAID FOR BY ME. THIS REPRESENTS THE EXPENSE WHICH I INCUR EACH DAY IN REPORTING TO DUTY AT MY OFFICIAL STATION FROM MY RESIDENCE AND IN RETURNING TO MY RESIDENCE FROM MY OFFICIAL STATION. THIS EXPENSE WAS BORNE BY ME, AND NOT CHARGED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

IN PURCHASING MY TICKET FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. TO CHICAGO, ILL., AND RETURN, I INCURRED NO ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE GOVERNMENT THAN I WOULD HAVE IF I HAD PURCHASED MY TICKET FROM BALTIMORE, MD. TO CHICAGO, ILL. AND RETURN SINCE THESE COSTS ARE THE SAME. IN ADDITION, I PAID THE EXTRA EXPENSE OF TRAVEL FROM MY RESIDENCE TO MY OFFICIAL STATION AND FROM MY OFFICIAL STATION TO MY RESIDENCE.

I, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE ADDITIONAL SUSPENSION OF $2.54, IS NOT A JUST CHARGE SINCE MY TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 9, SGTR, BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE, AND PER DIEM WAS NOT CLAIMED IN EXCESS OF AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLAIMED HAD THE TRAVEL BEEN FROM BALTIMORE INSTEAD OF WASHINGTON.

THE VOUCHER OF GEORGE P. SMITH, JR., RECLAIMING $2.54, THE AMOUNT ADMINISTRATIVELY DEDUCTED FROM VOUCHER NO. 2567656, PAID JUNE 30, 1943, RELATES TO TRAVEL FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, AND RETURN, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE CASE OF MR. RUMSEY, SUPRA.

IN SUPPORT OF HIS RECLAIM MR. SMITH STATES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

WHEN I LEFT FROM MY RESIDENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON MY TRAVEL TO NEW ORLEANS, LA., IT WAS ON MONDAY EVENING, MAY 3, 1943, AFTER I HAD PERFORMED MY REGULAR DUTIES IN BALTIMORE, MD., FROM 8:30 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. I LEFT WASHINGTON, D.C. AFTER MY PRESCRIBED HOURS OF DUTY, AT AN HOUR WHEN MY PRESENCE WAS NOT REQUIRED AT MY OFFICIAL STATION.

I RETURNED TO WASHINGTON, D.C. ON MONDAY MORNING, MAY 17, 1943, AT A VERY EARLY HOUR, PRIOR TO MY PRESCRIBED HOURS OF DUTY AT MY OFFICIAL STATION AND ALSO AT A TIME WHEN MY PRESENCE WAS NOT REQUIRED AT MY OFFICE.

THE COST OF THIS TRAVEL FROM BALTIMORE TO WASHINGTON ON 5/3 AND WASHINGTON TO BALTIMORE ON 5/17 IS NOT SHOWN ON MY VOUCHER SINCE IT WAS PERFORMED AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND WAS PAID FOR BY ME. THIS REPRESENTS THE EXPENSE WHICH I INCUR EACH DAY IN REPORTING TO DUTY AT MY OFFICIAL STATION FROM MY RESIDENCE AND IN RETURNING TO MY RESIDENCE FROM MY OFFICIAL STATION. THIS EXPENSE WAS BORNE BY ME, AND NOT CHARGED TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THE DECISION TO WHICH YOU REFER--- THAT OF DECEMBER 31, 1942, B 30297, 22 COMP. GEN. 572--- SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, HELD (QUOTING FROM PARAGRAPHS FOUR AND FIVE OF THE SYLLABUS):

WHERE AN EMPLOYEE PERFORMS OFFICIAL TRAVEL DIRECTLY FROM HIS HOME TO A NEARBY TEMPORARY DUTY STATION AND RETURN EACH DAY--- INSTEAD OF REPORTING TO HIS OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS AND THENCE TO HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION--- TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE OR MILEAGE FOR USE OF A PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE IS NOT ALLOWABLE IF THE DISTANCE FROM THE EMPLOYEE'SHOME TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION IS LESS THAN THE DISTANCE HE IS REQUIRED TO TRAVEL FROM AND TO HIS HOME TO AND FROM HIS HEADQUARTERS FOR REGULAR DUTY.

AN EMPLOYEE WHO PERFORMS OFFICIAL TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE ON A MILEAGE BASIS FROM HIS HOME TO A NEARBY TEMPORARY DUTY STATION THENCE TO HIS OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS AND RETURN HOME VIA THE TEMPORARY DUTY STATION IS ENTITLED TO MILEAGE ONLY FOR THE DISTANCE IN EXCESS OF THAT WHICH HE WOULD HAVE TRAVELED HAD HE TRAVELED DIRECTLY FROM AND TO HIS HOME TO AND FROM HIS HEADQUARTERS FOR REGULAR DUTY.

SUCH DECISION WAS BASED UPON FACTS DISCLOSING REPEATED TRAVEL "FROM * * * HOME TO A NEARBY TEMPORARY DUTY STATION AND RETURN EACH DAY--- INSTEAD OF REPORTING TO * * * OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS AND THENCE TO * * * TEMPORARY DUTY STATION," AND WAS NOT INTENDED FOR APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUAL TRIPS TO MORE DISTANT POINTS. NEITHER THE LAW NOR THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS CONTAIN A REQUIREMENT THAT THE PLACE OF ABODE SHALL BE WITHIN THE OFFICIAL STATION OF THE EMPLOYEE. OF COURSE, AN OFFICIAL TRIP IS PRESUMED TO START FROM AND END AT AN EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL STATION; AND WHILE AN EMPLOYEE WHO ELECTS TO RESIDE AT A PLACE BEYOND THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF HIS OFFICIAL STATION MAY BE PERMITTED TO START AN OFFICIAL TRIP FROM HIS HOME, THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE REGULATIONS OR OTHERWISE THAT HE WILL BE REIMBURSED FOR ANY EXCESS COSTS DUE TO THAT FACT. SEE 20 COMP. GEN. 315. CONVERSELY, IT FOLLOWS THAT WHERE THE EXPENSE INCURRED IN TRAVELING FROM HOME DOES NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN TRAVELING FROM THE OFFICIAL STATION, REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED IS IN ORDER. 22 COMP. GEN. 62, 68. NOR, WITHOUT MORE, DOES THERE APPEAR ANY PROPER BASIS FOR A REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OTHERWISE DUE.

ACCORDINGLY, UPON THE FACTS OF RECORD THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF A FIRST-CLASS ROUND-TRIP FARE FROM WASHINGTON TO BALTIMORE FROM THE TRAVEL VOUCHERS OF MESSRS. RUMSEY AND SMITH, SUPRA.

WITH RESPECT TO THOSE CASES WHEREIN DEDUCTIONS ARE PROPER YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT THEREOF IS FOR DETERMINATION UPON THE BASIS OF THE MODE AND CLASS OF TRANSPORTATION ACTUALLY UTILIZED BY THE TRAVELER IN REPORTING TO HIS TEMPORARY STATION APPEARS JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF EXISTING REGULATIONS AND DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE. SEE, IN THAT CONNECTION, 22 COMP. GEN. 1109. WHILE THE TRAVEL VOUCHER OF EDMOND J. SABATINI FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1 TO 31, 1943, INVOLVES THE QUESTION OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN PLACE OF ABODE AND TEMPORARY DUTY STATION, THE FACTS ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE TWO CASES, SUPRA, IN THAT THERE IS INVOLVED REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA (PLACE OF ABODE), AND WILMINGTON, DELAWARE (TEMPORARY DUTY STATION/--- THE OFFICIAL STATION OF MR. SABATINI DURING THE PERIOD HERE INVOLVED BEING TRENTON, NEW JERSEY. THE FACTS OF RECORD IN HIS CASE INDICATE THAT IN FEBRUARY, 1942, HE WAS TEMPORARILY ASSIGNED TO WORK IN WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, AND, WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF REDUCING SUBSISTENCE COSTS TO A MINIMUM, HE WAS PERSUADED TO MAKE NO CLAIM FOR PER DIEM UPON THE PREMISE THAT IN LIEU THEREOF HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TRANSPORTATION COSTS BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA AND WILMINGTON. THE ORDER UNDER WHICH TRAVEL WAS ACCOMPLISHED AUTHORIZED A PER DIEM OF $6 PER DAY WHICH, HAD THE EMPLOYEE REMAINED IN WILMINGTON FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD, WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY $165, WHEREAS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR TRANSPORTATION AMOUNTED TO APPROXIMATELY $17.30. IN THAT CONNECTION THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION, ALSO, THE FACT THAT TRENTON IS APPROXIMATELY 61 MILES FROM WILMINGTON WHEREAS PHILADELPHIA IS APPROXIMATELY 34 MILES FROM WILMINGTON--- THE FORMER DISTANCE NEGATIVING THE PRACTICABILITY OF DAILY ROUND TRIPS BETWEEN TRENTON AND WILMINGTON. IT IS FURTHER INDICATED THAT THE EMPLOYEE DID NOT VOLUNTARILY RESIDE AT HIS HOME DURING THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT AT WILMINGTON AND THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE COMMUTED SAVE THE INTERVENTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.

THE SETTLED RULE IS THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FROM HIS PLACE OF RESIDENCE TO HIS PLACE OF DUTY AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION. 11 COMP. GEN. 417; 15 ID. 342; 19 ID. 836. WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM OFFICIAL TRAVEL FROM HIS HOME, OR IS PERMITTED TO RETURN THERETO RATHER THAN TO HIS OFFICIAL HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, IT IS THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO SEE TO IT THAT NO TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES ARE AUTHORIZED IF THE PLACE OF TEMPORARY DUTY IS CLOSER TO THE EMPLOYEE'S HOME THAN IS HIS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE. 22 COMP. GEN. 62; ID. 572; B-36295, SEPTEMBER 18, 1943. AND WHERE AN EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARILY RESIDES AT HOME DURING A PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY AT A TEMPORARY STATION ADJACENT THERETO, LEAVING HIS HOME SHORTLY BEFORE 8 A.M. EACH DAY AND RETURNING SHORTLY AFTER 6 P.M. WITHOUT INCURRING ANY ADDITIONAL SUBSISTENCE COSTS, THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN ANY AMOUNT EVEN THOUGH THE ORDERS DIRECTING THE TEMPORARY DUTY AUTHORIZED PER DIEM. SEE 21 COMP. GEN. 697.

IT IS APPARENT THAT UNDER THE STATED GENERAL RULE, HAD THE EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARILY RESIDED AT HIS HOME DURING THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY, THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS INCURRED BY MR. SABATINI WOULD NOT BE FOR ALLOWANCE AS ITEMS OF TRANSPORTATION OR SUBSISTENCE. HOWEVER, IT SEEMS CLEARLY WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION TO ORDER AN EMPLOYEE TO MAKE DAILY TRIPS BETWEEN HIS PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY DUTY STATION--- WHERE DISTANCE PERMITS THAT --- RATHER THAN TO PERMIT HIM TO REMAIN AT HIS TEMPORARY POST DURING THE PERIOD OF TEMPORARY DUTY AND ALLOW HIM PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE AND (HAVING REGARD FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT BEING INDICATED THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDING AT HIS HOME WAS OTHER THAN VOLUNTARY) THAT, IN SUBSTANCE, IS WHAT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE; HENCE, SINCE THE EXPENSE OF TRAVEL AS ACTUALLY PERFORMED BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEE'S HOME AND TEMPORARY DUTY STATION WAS LESS THAN THE EXPENSE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD HE TRAVELED BETWEEN HIS PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY DUTY STATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE TRIPS AS PERFORMED IS AUTHORIZED. IT IS FOR NOTING THAT THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS HERE INVOLVED ARE NOT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THOSE ORDINARILY INCURRED BY PERSONS SOMEWHAT SIMILARLY SITUATED (BUT OF THEIR OWN VOLITION) WHO OTHERWISE WOULD COME SQUARELY WITHIN THE GENERAL RULE PROHIBITING REIMBURSEMENT FOR COST OF TRAVEL BETWEEN THEIR HOMES AND POINT OF OFFICIAL DUTY.

THE VOUCHER OF LEW E. WALLACE RECLAIMS $1.59 THE AMOUNT ADMINISTRATIVELY DEDUCTED ON VOUCHER NO. 2508551, PAID JUNE 17, 1943, FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVELY STATED REASON THAT PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS MAY NOT BE USED WHEN A TRIP IS FOR LESS THAN 2 HOURS IN DURATION ( CIRCULAR NO. 401).' THE TRAVEL INVOLVED WAS BY RAIL FROM DETROIT TO LANSING, MICHIGAN--- A JOURNEY OF LESS THAN TWO HOURS--- FOR THE PURPOSE OF BOARDING A BOAT AT THE LATTER POINT AND CONTINUED TRAVEL.

BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. 401, PROMULGATED OCTOBER 9, 1942, AMENDED PARAGRAPH 13 (A) (2) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS AND READS IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

PARLOR-CAR ACCOMMODATIONS: ONE SEAT IN A SLEEPING OR PARLOR-CAR WHEN THE CONTINUOUS RAIL JOURNEY IS MORE THAN TWO HOURS IN DURATION AND WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT A STOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING TRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN INTERRUPTION IN THE JOURNEY. IF UNDER EMERGENCY OR SIMILAR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE USE OF SUCH A SEAT IS NECESSARY FOR A JOURNEY OF TWO HOURS OR LESS, IT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED IN WRITING IN EACH CASE BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OR INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT OR BY AN OFFICIAL TO WHOM SUCH AUTHORITY HAS BEEN PROPERLY DELEGATED. IF THE JOURNEY IS OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES LOWEST RATE FIRST-CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS MAY BE ALLOWED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE LENGTH OF THE JOURNEY. ( SEE PAR. 28).

IN LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1943, B-31425, COMMENTING UPON THE QUOTED AMENDMENT, IT WAS STATED, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

PARENTHETICALLY, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE PORTION OF SECTION 13 (A 2) OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER CONTAINS THE WORDS "CONTINUOUS RAIL JOURNEY.' THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THOSE WORDS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED AS SYNONYMOUS WITH "CONTINUOUS TRAVEL STATUS.' COMPARE PARAGRAPH 51 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. THAT IS TO SAY, AN EMPLOYEE WOULD APPEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO A SEAT IN A SLEEPING OR PARLOR-CAR ONLY WHEN HE TRAVELS ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS CONTINUOUSLY BY RAIL FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS. THE REGULATION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED TO AFFORD COMFORT TO A TRAVELING EMPLOYEE, AND THAT THE LIMITATION THEREIN IS A DETERMINATION THAT A CONTINUOUS JOURNEY BY RAIL OF TWO HOURS OR LESS IN A DAY COACH WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP UPON AN EMPLOYEE WHO MAY BE DIRECTED TO TRAVEL ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHERS OF MESSRS. RUMSEY, SMITH, AND SABATINI, IS AUTHORIZED, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT, BUT THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHER OF MR. WALLACE.