B-133738, NOV. 29, 1957

B-133738, NOV. 29, 1957

TO CAPTAIN J. C. CAHILL:

UNDER DATE OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1957, THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, FORWARDED YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 18, 1957, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER HOMER L. ARCHER A/1C, AF 1425 4802, IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT (MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION), FOR HIS TRAVEL FROM OXNARD AIR FORCE BASE, OXNARD, CALIFORNIA, TO PARKS AIR FORCE BASE (NEAR PLEASANTON), CALIFORNIA, AND RETURN, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES STATED BELOW.

BY ORDERS DATED MAY 28, 1957, AIRMAN ARCHER WAS PLACED ON TEMPORARY DUTY FOR APPROXIMATELY THREE DAYS AND DIRECTED TO PROCEED FROM HIS DUTY STATION AT OXNARD AIR FORCE BASE TO PARKS AIR FORCE BASE ON OR ABOUT JUNE 5, 1957, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEDICAL CONSULTATION AT THE 2349TH USAF HOSPITAL, UPON COMPLETION OF WHICH HE WAS TO RETURN TO HIS STATION. WHILE THE ORDERS SHOW THAT THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO BE USED WAS "COML LAND LVL," NO MENTION WAS MADE OF A TRANSPORTATION REQUEST.

IT IS SHOWN THAT AIRMAN ARCHER TRAVELED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE FROM HIS STATION TO PARKS AIR FORCE BASE, AND RETURN, AND THAT THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FURNISHED WITH HIS TRAVEL ORDERS HAS BEEN RETURNED UNUSED. ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THE SUBMITTED VOUCHER THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS APPEAR OVER HIS SIGNATURE:

"I AM CLAIMING MILEAGE BECAUSE I DEPARTED OXNARD AFE, CALIF., 5 JUN 1957, AT 0001 HRS. I TRAVELED TO OXNARD, CALIF., AT MY OWN EXPENSE. AFTER I ARRIVED IN OXNARD, CALIF., I NOTICED THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST HAD A VOID AFTER 4 JUL 1937 DATE. I THOUGHT IT BEST NOT TO ACCEPT TRAVEL WITH THIS TRANSPORTATION REQUEST. THEREFORE, IN ORDER FOR US TO MEET MY APPOINTMENT AT PARKS AFB, CALIF., I PROCEEDED TO MY DESTINATION TPA AND AT MY OWN EXPENSE.'

YOU SAY THAT DOUBT EXISTS AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF PAYING THE REIMBURSEMENT VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $40.90--- FIVE CENTS PER MILE OVER A REPORTED DISTANCE OF 818 MILES--- DUE TO THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY PARAGRAPH 4203 -3D OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WHICH READS, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"D. ORDERS DIRECTING UTILIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS. WHEN TRAVEL ORDERS SPECIFICALLY DIRECT (AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AUTHORIZE) THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS VIA SPECIFIC MODES OF TRANSPORTATION BUT THE MEMBER PERFORMS TRAVEL AT PERSONAL EXPENSE, PAYMENT OF THE MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION IS PROHIBITED UNLESS THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR FURNISHING SUCH TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS CERTIFIES THAT TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE OR THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION DIRECTED WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME AND PLACE REQUIRED IN TIME TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS * * *.'

PARAGRAPH 2050-1 OF SUCH REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS WHO SURRENDER UNUSED TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS, COMPLETE TICKETS, OR UNUSED PORTIONS OF TICKETS OBTAINED ON TRANSPORTATION QUESTS,"SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL ALLOWANCES UNDER THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTERS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 OF THESE REGULATIONS, IF OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED.' PARAGRAPH 4203-3A OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDES:

"A. TRAVEL AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBPAR. B, WHEN AUTHORIZED TRAVEL IS PERFORMED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE THE MEMBER WILL BE REIMBURSED A MONETARY ALLOWANCE IN LIEU OF TRANSPORTATION AT THE RATE OF FIVE CENTS PER MILE FOR THE OFFICIAL DISTANCE.'

SUBPARAGRAPH "B" REFERS TO THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE AT THE RATE OF SEVEN CENTS PER MILE FOR OFFICIAL TRAVEL PERFORMED BY PRIVATELY OWNED CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO ORDERS AUTHORIZING SUCH MODE OF TRANSPORTATION AS MORE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT.

THE CITED REGULATIONS APPEAR TO CONTEMPLATE THE PAYMENT OF A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF FIVE CENTS PER MILE FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE, UPON THE SURRENDER OF ALL TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE TRAVELER, UNLESS HIS TRAVEL ORDERS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS. SINCE THE AIRMAN SURRENDERED THE UNUSED TRANSPORTATION REQUEST ISSUED IN THIS CASE AND HIS TRAVEL ORDERS DID NOT DIRECT THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH REQUEST, IT APPEARS THAT THE CLAIM IS PROPER FOR ALLOWANCE, IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.