I) Ul ,_ 843 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES * ~~~~~~~~WASHINGTON, D.C. =540 Be17(1266; -FEB 2 4 19 L ela Mrs.b , J*ord Authorized Certifying Officer Dspartmnt of jn and Urban Development Dear Mrs. HBMrdl w. refer to your letter dated Novembr 9, 197, vith G=U Mwes, requatilg our decision as to whetber a trwel vowber in favor of mr. nnars 3*rpaab emuA be vperlr certified for pBYwt. By letter dated embor 18, 1970, ve advised yotu that a deision could not be rendered in the absene o- a further xplstion of the reolaim voucher. I.z o ewaXnda dated Januar T, 19Th, Wr. ergenis whse official at&- tion ts Chicago, illnois, ftrished us with additional informton. we vere infor sl advised by your office that Mr. DBrgna was allowed per dim for 11 1/2 days on the or1gina1 ouer in whieh he claimed 14 3/4 Weai HU reMIMIis fOr the difference of 3 l/h days. Re Indicated in hIS lettr to Ou Offife tbSt the da in quWtion axe a (Saturday and Buday) July 2, 3, 4i, and 5. TMe last tV of tWo wer nouwoikdays, end we Presume JUy 3 was also & UnoVokdSay (holiday) for ep0 a basic voxkwek is )Onday through rid*y. 5 U.S.C. 61O3(b)(1).PA r-BbergISis stated that he did not retun to his official statio during the nazwo$kdys but went on a trip at personal expse to Toronto, Canada. The 3tandardized Gove: rt Travel Regu1*tiOn5, psrMrapp 6.3, pro- vide in part as folavat "A t2raveler will be cosidered to be in subsistence status an nonvork days unless he returns to Ks official station or place Of abode from which he 0oMites daily to his official station, or imless such noUVork day is iwin. diately preceded and followed by leav 04o absence: Prvided, That per diem in lieu of subsistence may not be pid fTOr are than 2 nonvo* days where the leave of absence is iwnediately preceded and followd by nonvork day(s)." this Lanu requires the termination of subsistence staBtu on1 when the above conditions edxit. Here the claimant did not retr to his . ,- ., ;;* ~.** , .. ;. B1.T7266 plac of abode or fMcal sttio nor vere the nova'kdOys iumadstOy pecded and followed by a leave of Absence. Ms, and since there is o ahoygtAt the clAimdmt vas rsqdired to ret= to his offcial StU- tio-On nO=O**AaysB, pament Of per diem fOr JUlY 3, 4, ad 5 appear proper. Mr' DBerPO6s states that be "had a fall day oft on July 3rd because of the ovcti earned 2mXw other tift." Bovmr, 81we Ju2 3 was a wn- vorkq it is possible that w is referrim to July 2 (ft!uiw) vhich wa a repularly sheduled vorkfty. uzthw inoiution is th o ed to determine hs entitlt, if any, to per dies for Ju 2 _1n this CotLtim V w an You attntion to that part of xetion 6.3 of the ftandardized Gwlvoebt 2'invel which controls the qustion of Per dies ftlLowuncea wtw leaves of absence mooar 'wholly within a sin-. gla day. Tb pwtlet lAW& Is a# follows: "fctiONal leave of &b$=QO ii214 within a day, vhe for ha of tbe ptrribed borking hour or le, Vill be disrsgaded for subsistewo purpommi vtwz it eo=:ed bait of the prescribed w*&.bW how$ no subsls. tenc wil. be allowed for te day," 4 the basis of the Veset reeord thewlogd reclaim voucher my be certified to payumnt in the amont af $60. An adtional amount My Possibly be due upm your obtining dditio*n informtio from B.erMnIs conring Jly 2. M91h 129Iq siftcerey yours, of the Uaited States mcelosurw -2 -
Comments on Whether HUD Could Certify an Employee's Travel Voucher for Payment
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-02-24.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)