Skip to Highlights
Highlights

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 13. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THAT YOUR RESIDENCE WAS EMMITSBURG. THAT TRAVEL IN PERFORMING THE TEMPORARY DUTY BEGAN AND ENDED THERE AND THE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF DUTY AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION. FROM YOU WHEN YOU WERE APPEALING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE YOU DID NOT QUESTION THE DETERMINATION THAT EMMITSBURG WAS THE PLACE FROM WHICH YOU COMMUTED DAILY TO YOUR HEADQUARTERS. SEVERAL STATEMENTS MADE BY YOU IN THAT LETTER WOULD INDICATE THAT YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT YOUR RESIDENCE AT THE TIME ACTUALLY WAS EMMITSBURG.

View Decision

B-158271, MAR. 31, 1967

TO MR. PATRICK F. MCGUCKEN:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 6, 1967, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PORTION OF OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 13, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ROUND TRIP MILEAGE BETWEEN WASHINGTON, D.C. (YOUR OFFICIAL STATION), AND EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND (YOUR PLACE OF RESIDENCE), DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 4 TO 6, 1963, INCIDENT TO YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY ASSIGNMENT AT NEW CUMBERLAND GENERAL DEPOT AND HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA.

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 13, 1965, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THAT YOUR RESIDENCE WAS EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND, AND THAT TRAVEL IN PERFORMING THE TEMPORARY DUTY BEGAN AND ENDED THERE AND THE ESTABLISHED RULE IS THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF DUTY AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION.

YOU NOW CONTEND THAT FOR SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION YOU DID NOT COMMUTE BETWEEN YOUR HOME IN EMMITSBURG AND YOUR HEADQUARTERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., BUT THAT YOU LIVED IN A ROOM IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND THAT FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING YOUR HOME NEVER BECAME A PLACE FROM WHICH YOU REGULARLY COMMUTED TO YOUR HEADQUARTERS.

IN LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 8, 1963, FROM YOU WHEN YOU WERE APPEALING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE YOU DID NOT QUESTION THE DETERMINATION THAT EMMITSBURG WAS THE PLACE FROM WHICH YOU COMMUTED DAILY TO YOUR HEADQUARTERS. SEVERAL STATEMENTS MADE BY YOU IN THAT LETTER WOULD INDICATE THAT YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT YOUR RESIDENCE AT THE TIME ACTUALLY WAS EMMITSBURG, SUCH AS:

"3. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MY VOUCHER STANDS DISAPPROVED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT TRAVEL BETWEEN HOME AND PERMANENT DUTY STATION, WHEN PERFORMED IN A PRIVATE VEHICLE, IS NOT REIMBURSABLE. WHILE I DO NOT DISPUTE THIS GENERAL PRINCIPLE IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT FOR APPLICATION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT HAND. I WAS NOT TRAVELLING BETWEEN HOME AND OFFICE BUT BETWEEN TDY STATION AND OFFICE (WITH AN ADMITTED STOPOVER EACH NIGHT AT HOME). * * *

"4. IN MY OPINION THE FACT THAT THE TWO NIGHTS WHILE ON TRAVEL WERE SPENT AT HOME IS SIMPLY A CONVENIENT COINCIDENCE * * *.

"5. PERHAPS MY CLAIM IS CLOUDED BY THE FACT THAT MY OWN VEHICLE WAS USED. SURELY THIS WAS NOT OF MY DOING. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS DEFINITELY CLOUDED BY REASON OF MY PRESENT ABODE AT EMMITSBURG. * * *

"6. IT IS MY SINCERE THOUGHT THAT MY RESIDENCE AT EMMITSBURG MAY EVENTUALLY BE TO THE SUBSTANTIAL ADVANTAGE OF BOTH THE GOVERNMENT AND MYSELF DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO SUCH CONSIDERATIONS DICTATED OR INFLUENCED MY ACTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, AS TO TRIPS THAT MAY ORIGINATE FROM EMMITSBURG: SUCH ORDERS WILL SAVE ME THE EXPENSE OF COMING INTO THE OFFICE AND MAY INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF A PRIVATE VEHICLE SINCE THE INTERESTS OF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD BE SERVED * * *.

"P.S. YOU UNDERSTAND OF COURSE THAT I WILL BE RESIDING IN THE TOWN OF EMMITSBURG NO MORE THAN 400 FEET FROM ROUTE 15 * * *.

ALSO, IN YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 6 YOU SAY THAT FOR A YEAR AFTER YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE YOU FILLED IN VARIOUS FORMS SHOWING YOUR RESIDENCE AS EMMITSBURG. IN CONSIDERING CLAIMS BEFORE OUR OFFICE WE MUST BASE OUR ACTION ON THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD. WHILE YOU NOW SAY THAT PRIOR TO THE PERIOD OF THE TRAVEL AND SUBSEQUENT THERETO YOU COMMUTED TO WORK REGULARLY FROM A ROOM YOU HAD RENTED IN WASHINGTON ALL OF THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD HERETOFORE PRESENTED REASONABLY ESTABLISHES THAT YOUR RESIDENCE WAS, IN FACT, EMMITSBURG. YOUR PRESENT STATEMENTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO REFUTE YOUR PRIOR ADMISSIONS AND OTHER EVIDENCE OF RECORD SHOWING THAT DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION YOUR RESIDENCE WAS, IN FACT, EMMITSBURG.

THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE EXISTING RECORD WE MUST SUSTAIN THAT PORTION OF THE PREVIOUS DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR TWO-WAY MILEAGE BETWEEN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND.

GAO Contacts