B-205721 L/M, JAN 11, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
Highlights
DIGEST: GAO WILL NOT ISSUE DECISION TO POSTAL SERVICE EMPLOYEE AS TO WHETHER HE IS INDEBTED TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FOR RELOCATION EXPENSES. MOREOVER POSTAL SERVICE IS NOT GOVERNED BY HOLDING IN FINN V. THAT WE RENDER A DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE FOR CERTAIN RELOCATION EXPENSES PAID TO YOU. YOU STATE THAT WHEN YOU WERE EMPLOYED WITH THE POSTAL SERVICE YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM BETHESDA. WHERE YOU ARE NOW EMPLOYED. THE POSTAL SERVICE IS SEEKING RECOVERY OF THE RELOCATION EXPENSES PAID TO YOU FOR YOUR TRANSFER FROM BETHESDA TO CHICAGO SINCE YOU DID NOT REMAIN IN THE POSTAL SERVICE THE REQUIRED 12 MONTHS. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WILL NOT ISSUE YOU A DECISION ON THE MATTER.
B-205721 L/M, JAN 11, 1982, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
DIGEST: GAO WILL NOT ISSUE DECISION TO POSTAL SERVICE EMPLOYEE AS TO WHETHER HE IS INDEBTED TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FOR RELOCATION EXPENSES. GAO HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS AGAINST POSTAL SERVICE. MOREOVER POSTAL SERVICE IS NOT GOVERNED BY HOLDING IN FINN V. UNITED STATES, 192 CT.CL. 814 (1970) RELATING TO SERVICE AGREEMENTS UNDER 5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724.
MR. H. ROLF HONG:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR REQUEST OF NOVEMBER 22, 1981, THAT WE RENDER A DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE FOR CERTAIN RELOCATION EXPENSES PAID TO YOU.
YOU STATE THAT WHEN YOU WERE EMPLOYED WITH THE POSTAL SERVICE YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM BETHESDA, MARYLAND, TO CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND INCIDENT TO THAT TRANSFER YOU SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO REMAIN IN THE POSTAL SERVICE FOR 12 MONTHS. PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE 12-MONTH PERIOD YOU TRANSFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WHERE YOU ARE NOW EMPLOYED. THE POSTAL SERVICE IS SEEKING RECOVERY OF THE RELOCATION EXPENSES PAID TO YOU FOR YOUR TRANSFER FROM BETHESDA TO CHICAGO SINCE YOU DID NOT REMAIN IN THE POSTAL SERVICE THE REQUIRED 12 MONTHS.
THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE HAS NO JURISDICTION TO SETTLE CLAIMS AGAINST THE POSTAL SERVICE SINCE THE POSTAL SERVICE HAS AUTHORITY TO SETTLE AND COMPROMISE CLAIMS BY OR AGAINST IT. 39 U.S.C. SEC. 401(8) (1976). B-164786, OCTOBER 8, 1970. THEREFORE, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL WILL NOT ISSUE YOU A DECISION ON THE MATTER.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION, HOWEVER, WE ARE ENCLOSING AN OPINION WHICH SHOULD BE HELPFUL TO YOU IN UNDERSTANDING YOUR SITUATION. SEE NORBERT J. BENGTSON, B-191991, DECEMBER 1, 1978. IN BENGTSON WE STATED THAT THE POSTAL SERVICE IS NOT COVERED BY THE RELOCATION EXPENSE LAW WHICH YOU CITE (5 U.S.C. SEC. 5724) AND, THUS, IS NOT BOUND BY THE HOLDING IN FINN V. UNITED STATES, 192 CT.CL. 814 (1970), THAT AN AGENCY MAY ONLY REQUIRE AN EMPLOYEE TO REMAIN IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE, RATHER THAN IN THE SERVICE OF THAT PARTICULAR AGENCY, FOR 12 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER. WE CONCLUDED IN BENGTSON THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POSTAL SERVICE'S AUTHORITY TO OBLIGATE ITS EMPLOYEES TO REMAIN IN THE POSTAL SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME FOLLOWING TRANSFER AND TO REQUIRE REPAYMENT OF RELOCATION EXPENSES IF THE AGREEMENT TO REMAIN IN THE POSTAL SERVICE IS VIOLATED FOR REASONS OTHER THAN THOSE ACCEPTABLE TO THE POSTAL SERVICE.
WE TRUST THE ABOVE RESPONSE IS OF ASSISTANCE TO YOU.