InGEST 663 COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATE WASHIN04Go", D.C. gm * T~~--71780 JUN 15 1971 Kr. crliand M. yruy 320 South Clark lrrie JAprtween 305 Los Angeles, California 90048 Nar ffr. Pyrsm Your letter of March 20, 1971, with enclosures, requests far- *tbr oessideration of your claim for reimburnt of expenses incurred incident to the chainge of your station fro Pcmona, Califorrd, to Los Angeles, California, as &A employee of the X#woh was the subject of ou !!jtonpf Departnt of Carem1r`e, March 17, 1971,,,1w-178O Yado also-refer to litts of April 1 and 19, 1971, with enclosures in which you quetlin Office settlement of April 8, 1971, which was issud pursuant to that decision. Tour transfer from Poanan, Califora, to Los Angeles, California, was directed by trawl order dated Septwber 3, 1969. You wre authorised to travI by privately owned autamoble and ure authorized transportation of household effects and tmporar quarters and subsistence at nw duty station, if necessary. Ry Office settlements dated "ecsmber 23, 1970, and April 8, 1971, vispeetim1y, you wre allowed *4 as mileage for yaw trnel frm Pomona to Los A.ngls and 1t129 as subuistenos for ex mne for your oceupacy of temporary quarters. With respect to the latter item, w advised you In the deci- sion tkat you wre entitled to the allovame authorised as reimbarse- ment of subsistence expenmei for yourself while occupying temporary quarters. WO -frther said that such allowance was not autiorised for yaw fuuily for the reaison that for rea tim prior to your notlcw of transfer youwizf and eon occupied quarters other than those ocoupied by you and in such cirmstarnos it could not be con- eluded that their ooeupaby of such quarters was oiden% to your transfer so as to qualify for an Allowanoe on their behalf. There- after, yim receivd Office 19tter of March 2, 1971, relative to this matter. Eav 664 ~-nt71?8 In yuw letter of April 19, I97 you ea that the Office let- ter called for a split in the s*nas and indicated Mrs. Pyr's share would be #270. You ask how the amount of '329 was eompted and contend that the total mmmt due is !408.85 including %4L.25 as interest at 8 percent for 17 mon*h.. Sioce your entitlement was liited to V.tsw te rary quarters e nore incurred by you only, a sinc Po3i-29 submitted by yo were not clear In tiis respect but included exrenses for you -d your wifo, the Office letter of March 29, 1971,n rquested yw to "fumdsh a breakdown of your subsistenoe', indicating the daily expenses-incurred by you &d those incwred ty your vife.* The letter did not. indicate that any amount would be paid on aacount of Mrs. P.yr=. A1 to the conputatien of the amount of A329, for the first 10 days your exoemns. wre one-half of `&A1.50 for meals and laundry, t70. 5t,. plus rental. iteus osf 135 and 53 or a total of q258.50. Since the saxi*= allwanc authorlted by Pudget, Circular No. A-56 for the first de in87.50, 4 ount wmn allowed in your case for that period. Since an *xense of Ol50j per week for meals uad laundry.w shmm for the second and third weks 'yf were allowed am- half of this or W7O.75 for each of those weeks, or a total of $329 for the 30-da; period Noyevber 17 to Iecember 16, 1969. Tour present letter affordA no brads for the allowance of my additional amount. The rule is well establisbd that the psymnt of interest by the Oovernmnt on its unpaid accounts or claims may not be made exept in interes tos stipulated tor i*, lol and proper contracts or when the allowance of interst is spec farly direed by statute. Angric v. !grd, 127 U.S. 251V(18 8); bnitd-statekv. North rlcaa Transiporttion & ding Co., 253 3XT. vI t U.S.239V(I 1.302 lnitd States . Botel Co., U.S 7 )." ware aware ofTno taV ToIwng for the pmaent of lnterest dar th, tfacts in your cuse. The decision of ?frch. 1', 1971, alsco Was concerned with-you claims for additioral mileage on vonaohuhr'dte March U, 1968, and for 1.28.9h deducted trm the voucher for ertrairdlea and per diem in- curred in pulling a U-aul trailer on a te duty trip to ia a, California. lou had been rlimburseti for muileae fron Pomna, California. . to Napa, . allfornla, instead of from Orange, California,. to Napa as claimed. The travel waa perf'onrrd under a travel auorizatio, 'rip No. 33, dated Pebruary 7, 1968. -2- -C. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ osad you had claimed reinbursement for "61' rles for travel frm Orange, California, to Nar*, California. You stated on the voucher that this mileage involved a circuitous route due to yow pulling a U-Haul trailer. "e said that the as nistrative office excluded the excess mileage incident to the circutous route and au- thorited reimbursement for b75 miles for travel from Pmona to Naps, that there is no significant difference in mile3gei Netween the points noted and that no adjustment in mileage is required. Apparently, you do not diste that conclusion. In discussing the iteyi of 12(6.9hb, however, we quoted a letter from the aministrative office stating that the mileage on the voucher included 80 miles round trie to %everly Hil to pick up your wife. In your letter of M'arch 20, 19Th, you point out that the speedmometer reading was 698 miles anc that you had deducted 80 miles to arrive at 618 miles. agree with yvur satmeiant, but as noted above, no addi- ae tional mileage is due for your travel under the authorization of February 7, 1968. As to your claim for A2M.9L for extra mileae and per diem in- cUrrod due to pulling a V-Raul trailer on a teiporary duty trip to Napa. you said. the trailer was needed to haul Goverwmat msaterial and to haul veroonal belongings because of the rate of Per diem authorized. In the decision we explained that any reimbursemnt for the hire of a trailer would require approvall by the adininivpfre ofice in accordanoe with the provisions of section 3.1,aof the Standardized Government Regulations. Tie referred to administrative reports dated *!sroh ll, 1970, and October '6 1970 that the of a U-Haul trailer is not authorized in connectilon with telnporary duty travel, that the rental of a U-Raul trailer mas not authorised in your case, and that the use of the trailer was more for personal reasons than for carry- ing foveraent equipment. Tn your letter of March 20, 1971, you say you were the custodian of a considerable quantity of Oovernwent-owned InstruwrPnts and sup- plies to be used at both Orange and tapa for the rdt-?roxt Service, and that the material had to be either shipped back and forth or be hauled by you. Also,, you say that since the rate of per diem author- ised was lowr than authorized for other inciviftals such as Wational Guard technicians, you had tc take personal gear to complete the travel required by the order. Where, as here, the facts in cases as stated by a claimant and as reported by the administrative office are at variance, it long has been the rule of our CrMle to accent the a*dinistrative renort in the ab- sence of convincing evidence to tbs contrary. As stated a.'eve, it is -3' .- *.**-4* - *-~~~~~~~~~~ ,. ~ I ~ ~ VJW asam=2i- 666 n-1.71780 dlinistratively revorted that In your cas the us. of a trailer was neither authorlied nor required. Also, the rate of pr dtie to which you were entitled for the teanporary duty he involWed was established by the Standardized Government Travel Regulations and while you may regard it as inadequate this does not afford a for payment of fasia your claim for 028.9b arising from the unauthorized rental of a trailer. Accordingly, the decision of March 17, 1971s, is affirmed. 'With your letter of March 20, 197l, you ulmitted a further claim for 1l,3l0 for transportation of Government equipmvnt between Orange and Naia during the years 1965 to 1968. Anparently, such equipment was trmnsported in rented cor.veyancas and you are basing your clam on an estimate of comiercial shipping costs of 1167.50 for each occasion (8 trAp8 0 tl67.to or t1,39C). There is no authority for reimbursing an employee for Government equipment carried by privately rented conveyance (pres;mably -fHaul trailer) based on the cost by cowrercial carrier. We do not understand why you did not subait a claim for the rental expenses at the time they were incurred similar to the claim for ^28.94 previously referred to. Of course, sach a clals, at this time. would have to be supported by receipts and have the approval of your agency. Under the cizrmstaces, we have no basis for consideration of such a. claki. Sineerely yours, R.F.KMLER C=Aptroller General of the United States 2UoY0i1 aui USDi110 asansqz. nobaoXzisS msrsaup yzrxoqsT setolqug nlot Ion bib Tilan - - Za~~~~~2MURU3 J9VART .- ad ~sonysvaoC "lksq2 imcelups iasanxwo3 Zol heisus TSI±II3' r. * _
Commerce Employee's Claim for Transfer-Related Expenses
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-06-15.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)