B-171969, AUG 8, 1974

B-171969, AUG 8, 1974

1. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) EMPLOYEE ASSIGNED AS IRS REPRESENTATIVE TO BROOKLYN STRIKE FORCE IN BROOKLY, NEW YORK, CLAIMS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED PURSUANT TO REQUEST BY STRIKE FORCE HEAD, A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEE. EMPLOYEE ALLEGES THAT HIS IRS SUPERVISOR IN WASHINGTON, D.C. APPROVED TRAVEL WHICH SUPERVISOR DENIES. CLAIM IS DENIED SINCE WHEN THERE IS DISPUTE AS TO FACTS BETWEEN CLAIMANTS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES, GAO WILL ACCEPT STATEMENTS OF FACTS FURNISHED BY THE AGENCY, ABSENT A PREPONDERANCE OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE, AND CLAIMANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SHOW IRS DETERMINATION THAT TRAVEL WAS UNAUTHORIZED IS INCORRECT. 2. ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT, AN IRS STRIKE FORCE REPRESENTATIVE, CONTENDS THAT THE HEAD OF BROOKLYN STRIKE FORCE, A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, HAD AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE HIS TRAVEL SINCE STRIKE FORCE HEAD WAS HIS SUPERVISOR, CLAIM FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED PURUSANT TO REQUEST BY JUSTICE EMPLOYEE IS DISALLOWED, SINCE UNDER SECTION 1.5, STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, TRAVEL MAY BE AUTHORIZED ONLY BY HEAD OF EMPLOYEE'S OWN AGENCY, OR ONE DELEGATED SUCH AUTHORITY BY AGENCY HEAD, AND THERE IS NOTHING IN RECORD INDICATING DIRECTOR, IRS, HAD DELEGATED TRAVEL APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STRIKE FORCE HEAD, OR THAT IRS ITSELF AUTHORIZED TRAVEL.

CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES WHERE TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION IS CONTESTED:

THIS MATTER INVOLVES A REQUEST FOR AN ADVANCE DECISION AS TO WHETHER MR. FRED E. KRYSA, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS), IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES THAT HE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH A TRIP HE MADE FROM BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, TO LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AND RETURN DURING DECEMBER 1 THROUGH 5, 1971.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT MR. KRYSA WAS EMPLOYED BY THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE BETWEEN APRIL 1967 AND MARCH 1972 AS A STRIKE FORCE REPRESENTATIVE. HE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE OPERATIONS BRANCH OF THE INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, NATIONAL OFFICE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, AS THE IRS REPRESENATIVE TO THE BROOKLYN STRIKE FORCE, AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, LOCATED IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, WHICH WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME IN THAT AREA BY ONE OR MORE OF THE VARIOUS FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE IRS INTELLIGENCE DIVISION.

MR. KRYSA, AS THE IRS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BROOKLYN STRIKE FORCE, SERVED IN A LIAISON CAPACITY BETWEEN THE STRIKE FORCE ATTORNEY IN CHARGE, MR. DENIS E. DILLON (A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE), AND THE BROOKLYN DISTRICT INTELLIGENCE DIVISION, AN ELEMENT OF THE IRS. MR. KRYSA'S IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR IN THE IRS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WAS MR. JOSEPH PAGANI, WHO AT THAT TIME WAS A STRIKE FORCE COORDINATOR IN THE OPERATIONS BRANCH, NATIONAL OFFICE, IRS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN EARLY DECEMBER 1971, A MEETING WAS SCHEDULED IN LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES AND BROOKLYN STRIKE FORCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF COORDINATING THE INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS OF BOTH ORGANIZATIONS IN CERTAIN OPERATIONS. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT MR. DILLON, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY IN CHARGE OF THE BROOKLYN STRIKE FORCE, DESIRED MR. KRYSA TO ATTEND THE LOS ANGELES MEETING. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 30, 1971, MR. KRYSA CALLED HIS IMMEDIATE IRS SUPERVISOR, MR. PAGANI, AND REQUESTED PERMISSION TO ATTEND THE LOS ANGELES MEETING. ON THE OTHER HAND THERE IS DISAGREEMENT CONCERNING THE RESPONSE MR. PAGANI MADE TO THIS REQUEST. MR. KRYSA MAINTAINS THAT MR. PAGANI GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO TRAVEL WHILE MR. PAGANI STATES THAT PERMISSION WAS WITHHELD PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION WHICH MR. KRYSA NEVER SUPPLIED. BOTH MR. PAGANI AND MR. KRYSA HAVE PRODUCED WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT THEIR INDERSTANDING OF WHAT OCCURRED DURING THIS CRITICAL TELEPHONE CONVERSATION. IN ADDITION, MR. KRYSA, THROUGH HIS ATTORNEY, CONTENDS THAT APPROVAL OF MR. PAGANI WAS NOT ESSENTIAL TO AUTHORIZE HIS TRAVEL BECAUSE MR. DILLON WAS ALSO HIS SUPERVISOR AND HAD THE REQUISITE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE TRAVEL, WHICH HE DULY EXERCISED IN THIS INSTANCE.

THE REGULATION GOVERNING OFFICIALS AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE TRAVEL REQUESTS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WAS CONTAINED IN SECTION 1.5, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-7, REVISED, AUGUST 17, 1971, SUBJECT "STANDARDIZED GOVERNMENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS," WHICH PROVIDES:

"1.5 AUTHORITY FOR TRAVEL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW ALL TRAVEL WILL BE EITHER AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR BY AN OFFICIAL TO WHOM SUCH AUTHORITY HAS BEEN DELEGATED. ORDINARILY AN AUTHORIZATION WILL BE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE INCURRENCE OF THE EXPENSES WHICH SPECIFIES THE TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED AS DEFINITELY AS POSSIBLE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES."

UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE QUOTED REGULATION ONLY THE HEAD OF MR. KRYSA'S AGENCY, THE DIRECTOR OF THE IRS, OR PERSONS SPECIFICALLY TO WHOM HE DELEGATED SUCH AUTHORITY HAD THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE MR. KRYSA TO TRAVEL. INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE IRS INDICATES THAT AUTHORITY TO APPROVE TRAVEL HAD BEEN DELEGATED BY THE DIRECTOR TO MR. PAGANI, BUT HAD NEVER BEEN DELEGATED TO MR. DILLON. HENCE, MR. DILLON WAS APPARENTLY WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO APPROVE MR. KRYSA'S TRAVEL ON THE OCCASION AT ISSUE.

THIS CASE, THERFORE, INVOLVES A DISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT BETWEEN MR. KRYSA AND HIS FORMER AGENCY, THE IRS, AS TO WHETHER MR. PAGANI, HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR, AUTHORIZED THE TRAVEL AT ISSUE. WHEN DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISE BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY REPRESENTATIVE, IT HAS LONG BEEN THE PRACTICE OF OUR OFFICE TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS FURNISHED BY THE AGENCY IN THE ABSENCE OF A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. B-176477, AUGUST 27, 1973, AND B-148058, OCTOBER 10, 1962. IN THE INSTANT CASE WE ARE OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THE IRS DETERMINATION THAT MR. KRYSA'S TRIP TO LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, IN EARLY DECEMBER 1971, WAS NEVER AUTHORIZED SINCE HE HAS NOT SUPPLIED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DETERMINATION WAS INCORRECT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS ON THE PRESENT RECORD FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF MR. KRYSA'S TRAVEL EXPENSES.

ACCORDINGLY, MR. KRYSA'S CLAIM IS DISALLOWED.

R.F. KELLER

DEPUTY COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES ..END :