Skip to Highlights
Highlights

MCGUCKEN: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1. THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DENIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THAT YOUR RESIDENCE WAS EMMITSBURG. WE ASSUME AT THAT TIME YOU STARTED TO COMMUTE FROM EMMITSBURG TO WASHINGTON AND THAT YOU WERE STILL DOING SO AT THE TIME THE TEMPORARY DUTY HERE IN QUESTION BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 4. A MATTER OF WHETHER YOU PREVIOUSLY OR SUBSEQUENTLY COMMUTED FROM A ROOM IN WASHINGTON IS NOT CONTROLLING. YOUR SUPERIOR MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT YOU WERE AT LEAST COMMUTING BETWEEN EMMITSBURG AND WASHINGTON ON SEPTEMBER 4. OR ELSE THE EXPENSES FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TRIP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.

View Decision

B-158271, APR. 24, 1967

TO MR. PATRICK F. MCGUCKEN:

THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 1, 1967, APPEALING FROM OUR DECISION B-158271 OF MARCH 31, 1967, SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ROUNDTRIP 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 PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. YOUR CLAIM WAS DENIED 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, THE ESTABLISHED RULE BEING THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BEAR THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN HIS RESIDENCE AND HIS PLACE OF DUTY AT HIS OFFICIAL STATION.

YOU REITERATE THE CONTENTION THAT FOR SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE TEMPORARY DUTY AND FOR A YEAR AFTERWARDS YOU LIVED IN A ROOM IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND DID NOT COMMUTE TO YOUR OFFICIAL STATION FROM YOUR ADMITTED RESIDENCE IN EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND. WE NOTE FROM THE RECORD THAT YOU CAME TO WASHINGTON, D.C., IN APRIL 1963, WHEREAS YOUR FAMILY DID NOT ARRIVE AT EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND, UNTIL THE 27TH OF AUGUST 1963. WE ASSUME AT THAT TIME YOU STARTED TO COMMUTE FROM EMMITSBURG TO WASHINGTON AND THAT YOU WERE STILL DOING SO AT THE TIME THE TEMPORARY DUTY HERE IN QUESTION BEGAN ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1963. THUS, A MATTER OF WHETHER YOU PREVIOUSLY OR SUBSEQUENTLY COMMUTED FROM A ROOM IN WASHINGTON IS NOT CONTROLLING. PRESUMABLY, YOUR SUPERIOR MUST HAVE BEEN AWARE THAT YOU WERE AT LEAST COMMUTING BETWEEN EMMITSBURG AND WASHINGTON ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1963, OR ELSE THE EXPENSES FOR THAT PORTION OF THE TRIP WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.

YOU ALSO ASSERT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO ORDERS IF THE USE OF A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE HAD BEEN DIRECTED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR TEMPORARY DUTY, AND IN PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE YOU SAY THAT THE USE OF A GOVERNMENT CAR WOULD HAVE ENTITLED YOU TO PER DIEM IF YOU HAD PERFORMED THE DUTY UNDER ORDERS. YOU ASK HOW IS IT ANY DIFFICULT IF YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO USE YOUR OWN CAR IN CARRYING OUT THE TEMPORARY DUTY.

OF COURSE, IN YOUR CASE YOU HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO USE A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO ANY MILEAGE BUT ONLY TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE OPERATION THEREOF ON AN ACTUAL EXPENSE BASIS. CONCEIVABLY, IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO TAKE A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE TO EMMITSBURG THE NIGHT BEFORE USING GOVERNMENT GASOLINE AND OIL SO AS TO TRAVEL ON TO NEW CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, THE NEXT DAY. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WOULD BE REGARDED AS TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS FROM THE TIME YOU LEFT WASHINGTON. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES YOU WOULD NOT BE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS UNTIL YOU LEFT EMMITSBURG.

INSOFAR AS THE MATTER OF ENTITLEMENT TO PER DIEM IS CONCERNED THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USING YOUR OWN CAR OR A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE. SECTION 6.8 OF THE STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AT ANY EMPLOYEE'S PLACE OF ABODE FROM WHICH HE COMMUTES DAILY TO HIS OFFICIAL STATION.

REFERRING TO YOUR INDICATION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO ORDERS SO AS TO AUTHORIZE POSSESSION OF A GOVERNMENT VEHICLE, WE POINT OUT THAT, PRESUMABLY, WHEN A GOVERNMENT AUTOMOBILE IS TURNED OVER TO AN INDIVIDUAL FOR USE ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS HE IS GIVEN, OR ELSE HAS IN HIS POSSESSION, SOME MEANS OF ESTABLISHING HIS AUTHORITY TO USE THE SAME. UNDOUBTEDLY, MANY EMPLOYEES USE GOVERNMENT AUTOMOBILES AT THEIR OFFICIAL STATIONS WITHOUT TRAVEL ORDERS SINCE NONE ARE REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING OUR PREVIOUS SECTION DENYING YOUR CLAIM FOR MILEAGE AND SUBSISTENCE BETWEEN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND, IS AND MUST BE SUSTAINED. UNLESS ADDITIONAL CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED ANY FURTHER APPEALS IN THIS AREA WILL BE FILED WITHOUT REPLY.

GAO Contacts