Entitlement of Consultant to Leave and Travel Expenses

The Director of Personnel Systems and Payroll Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), requested a decision concerning the entitlement of a HUD employee to annual and sick leave while he was previously employed by HUD as a consultant. The agency also questioned the employee's entitlement to travel expenses during the period he was employed as a consultant. Through his attorneys, the employee argued that he was entitled to leave benefits for the period during which he assumed the greater responsibilities of project coordinator with duties coextensive with those of regular full-time employees. With regard to this matter, he submitted a proposed revision of his work statement which he claimed required him to maintain daily involvement with ongoing projects. The employee also argued that he was never aware that his employment status changed from intermittent to temporary, or that this designation affected his entitlement to travel expenses. He further argued that he should retain this travel reimbursement in view of the unique fact situation. Alternatively, any erroneously paid travel expenses should be waived and reimbursement for attorney fees in connection with this case should be forthcoming. GAO held that examination of the records did not clearly establish that the employee served a regular tour of duty under which he was required to perform duty at a definite and certain time. Supportive documentation was necessary in order to be eligible for annual and sick leave. With regard to the matter of travel reimbursement, GAO found no basis to question transportation and per diem expenses paid to the employee during the first 130 days of this employment as an intermittent consultant. However, once he had worked 130 days, he could no longer be considered as intermittent, but was classified as temporary. As a temporarily employed consultant, the employee was no longer entitled to travel expenses or to per diem. While the circumstances that resulted in overpayments of travel expenses appeared to have been due in part to HUD's failure to exercise proper controls over its use of consulting services, there is no authority to waive the erroneous payments. Finally, there had been no determination that the employee had been affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action, and no basis was found to award attorney fees under this authority.