B-93991, APRIL 19, 1950, 29 COMP. GEN. 417

B-93991, APRIL 19, 1950, 29 COMP. GEN. 417

TRAVELING AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES - RETURN TO U.S. - SUCCESSIVE CHANGES OF STATION AN EMPLOYEE WHO, UPON ARRIVAL FROM AN OVERSEAS STATION PURSUANT TO CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVELING EXPENSES, TRAVELED TO A PLACE OTHER THAN HIS NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LEAVE, AND WHOSE OFFICIAL STATION WAS LATER CHANGED TO SUCH PLACE BY ORDERS NOT PROVIDING FOR TRAVEL, IS ENTITLED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10069, TO BE REIMBURSED THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED NOT TO EXCEED THE EXPENSES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE UNDER THE ORIGINAL ORDERS HAD THE EMPLOYEE COMPLETED THE TRAVEL TO THE NEW DUTY STATION. REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST INCURRED BY AN EMPLOYEE INCIDENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENT UPON ARRIVAL IN THE UNITED STATES FROM AN OVERSEAS STATION TO A POINT OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYEE'S NEW OFFICIAL DUTY STATION IS AUTHORIZED UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9805, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10069, PROVIDED SUCH COST DOES NOT EXCEED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL TO THE EMPLOYEE'S NEW DUTY STATION, AND THE FACT THAT THE PLACE TO WHICH THE DEPENDENT TRAVELED WAS LATER DESIGNATED AS THE EMPLOYEE'S OFFICIAL DUTY STATION WOULD NOT OPERATE TO DEFEAT HIS RIGHT TO BE REIMBURSED FOR THE DEPENDENT'S TRAVEL TO THAT POINT.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO MILDRED F. DRAPER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, APRIL 19, 950:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 23, 1950, TRANSMITTING A VOUCHER STATED IN FAVOR OF CALEB P. DALEY FOR $68.70, REPRESENTING PLANE FARES FOR HIMSELF AND HIS WIFE FROM MIAMI, FLORIDA, TO CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND REQUESTING AN ADVANCE DECISION AS TO PROPRIETY OF ALLOWANCE OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED.

IT IS STATED THAT, ON AUGUST 15, 1949, LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED TO MR. DALEY TO COVER HIS TRANSFER FROM SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, TO NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA; THAT HE LEFT SAN JUAN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS WIFE, BY PLANE ON AUGUST 30, ARRIVING IN MIAMI THE SAME DAY; AND THAT BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH HE PROCEEDED TO HIS WIFE'S HOME IN CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR A PERIOD OF RECUPERATION PRIOR TO REPORTING FOR DUTY AT NEW ORLEANS. FURTHER, YOU ADVISE THAT, WHILE HE WAS AT CHARLESTON ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE, HIS OFFICIAL STATION WAS CHANGED FROM NEW ORLEANS TO CHARLESTON IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORIZATION DATED FEBRUARY 15, 1950, BUT THAT SAID LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION DID NOT PROVIDE FOR TRAVEL FROM MIAMI TO CHARLESTON--- THE COST OF WHICH IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN LESS THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAD TRAVEL BEEN PERFORMED FROM MIAMI TO NEW ORLEANS.

WHILE COPIES OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS ISSUED TO MR. DALEY HAVE NOT BEEN FURNISHED, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION PROVIDED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE AND HIS WIFE FROM SAN JUAN TO NEW ORLEANS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, AND THE CONCLUSIONS HEREINAFTER STATED ARE PREDICATED UPON THAT BASIS.

SECTION 2 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805 OF NOVEMBER 25, 1946, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 10069, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1949, PROVIDES THAT TRAVEL EXPENSES OF CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER FOR PERMANENT DUTY SHALL BE ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRAVEL EXPENSE ACT OF 1949, PUBLIC LAW 92, APPROVED JUNE 9, 1949, 63 STAT. 166, AND THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. SECTION 3 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805, AS AMENDED, PROVIDES FOR ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH RELATE TO TRANSPORTATION WHERE THE TRAVEL ORIGINATES AT THE EMPLOYEE'S LAST OFFICIAL STATION OR AT SOME PREVIOUS PLACE OF RESIDENCE, AND WHERE THE POINT OF DESTINATION IS THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION OR SOME OTHER POINT SELECTED BY HIM, OR BOTH--- THE COST TO THE GOVERNMENT NOT TO EXCEED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL ROUTE BETWEEN THE LAST OFFICIAL STATION AND THE NEW OFFICIAL STATION. SECTION 10 OF THE ABOVE- MENTIONED TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN EMPLOYEE TRAVELS BY AN INDIRECT ROUTE FOR PERSONAL CONVENIENCE REIMBURSEMENT WILL BE BASED ONLY ON SUCH CHARGES "AS WERE ACTUALLY INCURRED, NOT TO EXCEED WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE MOST ECONOMICAL USUALLY TRAVELED TE.'

AT THE TIME OF THE EMPLOYEE'S TRAVEL FROM SAN JUAN TO CHARLESTON HE WAS PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO TRANSFER ORDERS REQUIRING HIM TO REPORT TO NEW ORLEANS FOR PERMANENT DUTY AND, UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND TRAVEL REGULATIONS, HE WAS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE COST OF DIRECT TRAVEL FROM SAN JUAN TO NEW ORLEANS, ANY EXCESS COST BY REASON OF DEVIATION FROM THE DIRECT ROUTE TO BE BORNE FROM PERSONAL FUNDS. THE FACT THAT HIS OFFICIAL STATION WAS CHANGED FROM NEW ORLEANS TO CHARLESTON WHILE HE WAS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE AT THE LATTER POINT DID NOT OPERATE TO DEFEAT HIS RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED, NOT EXCEEDING THE EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLE UNDER HIS ORIGINAL ORDERS HAD HE COMPLETED THE TRAVEL TO NEW ORLEANS AT THE TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF LEAVE. ACCORDINGLY, AND SINCE IT IS STATED THAT THE COST OF TRAVEL BY AIR FROM MIAMI TO CHARLESTON IS LESS THAN THE COST OF TRAVEL BY AIR FROM MIAMI TO NEW ORLEANS, THE CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF THE EMPLOYEE APPEARS TO BE FOR ALLOWANCE.

WITH RESPECT TO TRAVEL OF THE EMPLOYEE'S WIFE, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT, UNDER THE SPECIFIC TERMS OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 9805, AS AMENDED, SUPRA, ALLOWANCE OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF AN EMPLOYEE'S IMMEDIATE FAMILY TO A POINT OTHER THAN THE EMPLOYE'S NEW OFFICIAL STATION IS PAYABLE PROVIDED THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION TO SUCH POINT--- HERE CHARLESTON--- DOES NOT EXCEED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRAVEL TO THE EMPLOYEE'S NEW OFFICIAL STATION--- THAT IS, NEW ORLEANS. THE FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE EMPLOYEE'S HEADQUARTERS WAS CHANGED TO CHARLESTON SUBSEQUENT TO THE COMPLETION OF HIS WIFE'S TRAVEL TO THAT POINT IS IMMATERIAL SO FAR AS HER TRAVEL AND THE RESULTING REIMBURSEMENT RIGHTS ARE CONCERNED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.