Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

of the act of April 6, 1914, 38 Stat. 335, 5 U. S. C. 55, generally prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to pay the compensation or expenses of accountants or other experts inaugurating new or changing old methods of transacting the business of the United States. A copy of the proposed contract was not furnished with your letter and its precise terms are not known. However, the services which the contractor is proposing to perform are stated as working to the attainment, among other things, of improving methods and procedures, elimination of duplication, and bringing better housekeeping. If that be a fact it seems clear to me that such objectives definitely relate to the inauguration of new methods or the changing of old methods of transacting the Government's business and, as such, are within the meaning of the said

act.

In view of the foregoing, I am constrained to conclude that the expenditure of appropriated funds under a contract such as proposed in your letter is not authorized.

(B-72430)

TRAVELING EXPENSES-CIVILIANS APPOINTED FOR DUTY OVERSEAS-RESIDENCE AND POST OF DUTY IN ALASKA

The provisions of section 7 of the administrative expense statute of August 2, 1946, authorizing payment of the expenses of travel of new appointees to places of employment outside continental United States being primarily applicable to persons who, at the time of appointment, actually were residents of the United States and who were required to travel to posts of duty outside continental United States, such expenses of travel may not be paid to a new appointee residing in Alaska and appointed for duty at a post also in Alaska. 26 Comp. Gen. 679, distinguished.

Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of Commerce, March 11, 1948: There has been considered your letter of January 2, 1948, requesting decision as to "whether or not" this Office would object to the payment, under section 7 of Public Law 600, approved August 2, 1946, 60 Stat. 806, 808, of "travel and transportation expenses of an appointee residing in Alaska and appointed for duty at a post, also in Alaska." Your letter refers to Office decision of March 18, 1947, 26 Comp. Gen. 679, in which it was stated that the general purpose of section 7 of Public Law 600 was to facilitate the recruitment of personnel and in which it was held that this Office would not object to the payment of expenses of a new appointee residing in Hawaii (an organized Territory of the United States) and appointed to a post of duty in Alaska (a point outside the continental limits of the United States). While one of the purposes of section 7 of Public Law 600 was to facilitate the recruitment of personnel for duty outside the continental limits of the United States, it primarily was intended for

[ocr errors]

application to cases of persons who, at the time of their appointment, actually were residents of this country and who were required to travel to posts of duty beyond the continental limits of the United States. See page 6 of House Report 2186, 79th Congress. Although in decision of March 18, 1947, 26 Comp. Gen. 679, supra, the act was interpreted as covering a new appointeee who resided in Hawaii and who was required to travel to a post of duty in Alaska, since, in the instant case, the new appointees would not be required to travel outside of Alaska, the Territory in which they would be hired, I am constrained to the view that the payment of their traveling and transportation expenses to their posts of duty would not be authorized under the provisions of section 7 of Public Law 600.

(B-73409)

ENLISTED PERSONNEL ON CIVILIAN DUTY DURING FURLOUGH—
DOUBLE COMPENSATION PROHIBITION; INCOMPATIBILITY OF EM-
PLOYMENT

The fact that the duration of the civilian employment of an Army enlisted
man while on furlough was of necessity limited to his furlough period
may not be regarded as expressly restricting the civilian compensation to
such a limited amount as when added to his Army pay would not exceed
the $2,000 per annum dual compensation restriction of the act of May 10,
1916, as amended, so as to except the enlisted man from the general rule
that the combined rates of compensation are for consideration in determin-
ing whether the receipt of two salaries exceeds the statutory limitation, and
not the aggregate compensation actually received in any particular year.
The holding of a civilian Federal position while receiving active-duty pay as
a member of the armed forces is incompatible with military duty, actual
or potential, notwithstanding that the individual may have been on furlough
from the armed forces during the period of employment.

Comptroller General Warren to E. R. Hill, Department of Agriculture, March 11, 1948:

Reference is made to your letter of January 30, 1948 (your reference, A, Disbursement, Vouchers), transmitting a pay roll voucher on which payment is proposed to Donald C. Hineman for 111 hours at $1.10 per hour, or a total of $122.10, covering services performed as fire fighter crew boss on the Toiyabe National Forest during the period August 6 to 13, 1947, and requesting decision as to whether said voucher may be certified for payment. Your doubt in the matter arises from the fact that Mr. Hineman was at that time an Army corporal on furlough, his Army pay amounting to $90 a month. You suggest that there would be no possibility of the combined rates of pay exceeding $2,000, as his furlough was for 30 days only.

In determining whether the receipt of two salaries exceeds the $2,000 limit established by the act of May 10, 1916, as amended by the act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat. 120, 582, it has been held by this Office that it

is the combined rates of compensation that are for consideration and if the combined rates exceeded $2,000 such dual employment is within the prohibition of said act notwithstanding that the aggregate compensation actually received in any particular year may not have equaled that amount. 11 Comp. Gen. 200; 12 id. 583; 15 id. 751; 18 id. 614. The only exceptions to that rule recognized by this Office have been in those cases where the compensation of one of the positions was restricted expressly in the appointment to such a limited amount as when added to the salary of the other position held by the individual would not exceed $2,000. The fact that the employee in this case had been granted a furlough from the Army for only 30 days would not bring him within such exception to the general rule, and there is no doubt but that the rate of compensation at $1.10 per hour would in itself amount to a rate of more than $2,000 per annum.

Aside from the question of dual compensation, however, it has been held repeatedly by this Office that the holding of a civilian Federal position while receiving active duty pay as a member of the armed forces is incompatible with military duty, actual or potential, and that it was immaterial that the individual may have been on furlough from the armed forces during the involved periods. 22 Comp. Gen. 127; 25 id. 866; B-47807, April 28, 1945. Accordingly, in the circumstances stated in your submission, the voucher may not be certified for payment.

The voucher is returned herewith.

(B-72958)

TRANSPORTATION-HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS SHIPMENT BY
EMPLOYEE'S TRAILER

Under section 12 of Executive Order No. 9805, which authorizes reimbursement for the transportation of employees' household effects upon change of station in a commuted amount based on the net weight of the household effects "actually shipped by carrier," but which provides no allowance where shipment is accomplished by other than a "carrier," there is no basis upon which reimbursement may be made for shipments effected by means of an employee's trailer.

Comptroller General Warren to Frank H. Shiner, Department of the Interior, March 12, 1948:

Reference is made to your letter of January 19, 1948, file reference 375, transmitting a reclaim voucher in favor of Fred I. Gould for $50.51, alleged to be due for shipment of a portion of his household effects from Grand Junction, Colorado, to Mancos, Colorado, by means of the employee's trailer, incident to a permanent transfer of duty station as an employee of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of

the Interior, and requesting a decision as to whether reimbursement for such shipment is authorized.

By transfer order dated July 14, 1947, the employee's permanent duty station was changed from Grand Junction, Colorado, to Mancos, Colorado, effective August 10, 1947, and the shipment of his household effects in accordance with the terms of Executive Order 9805 was authorized therein. Pursuant to said authorization his effects were moved from his old to his new station during the period July 31 to August 4, 1947, 3,620 pounds being shipped by public carrier van and 1,380 pounds by the employee's trailer. The employee claimed reimbursement of $183, which amount is allowable under Executive Order 9805 upon a commuted basis for shipment of 5,000 pounds of effects over a distance of 210 miles at the rate of $3.66 per cwt. However, the sum of $50.51 administratively was deducted therefrom covering that portion of the effects (1,380 pounds) transported in the employee's trailer. Both the amount of the said deduction and the payment allowed for shipment of 3,620 pounds were computed at the rate of $3.66 per cwt. The employee now submits a reclaim voucher for payment of the amount deducted from the original claim, namely, $50.51.

Section 12 of Executive Order 9805, governing the payment of transportation expenses for shipment of household and personal effects of civilian officers and employees of the United States upon transfer of permanent duty station, provides as follows:

Commutation of expenses. In lieu of the payment of actual expenses of transportation, packing, crating, temporary storage, drayage, and unpacking of household goods and personal effects in the case of transfers between points within the continental United States, reimbursement shall be made to the employee on a commutated basis at rates per hundred pounds as fixed by zones in Schedule A which is attached to and made a part of these regulations. The amount payable shall be the product of the applicable rate and the net weight of household goods and personal effects actually shipped by carrier for the employee (within the weight limitation prescribed by section 16 hereof). Government bills of lading shall not be used. (Italics supplied.)

It is clear from the above-quoted section of the regulations-particularly the italicized portion-that the regulations contemplate shipment of an employee's effects by private or common carrier. No provision is made therein for allowance of any sum where the ship-ment of the effects is accomplished by means of the employee's trailer, that is, by other than a "carrier." In the absence thereof, there is no legal basis upon which reimbursement may be authorized for shipments of effects accomplished by such means of transportation. See 111 P. 2d 306, 310 [Board of Railroad Com'rs, et al. v. GambleRobinson Co., et al.]; 133 P. 2d 231, 237 [Hudgens v. State]. Also see, Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 6, pages 172–173 for other definitions of the word "carrier.”

However, since under the facts presented, the employee legally is entitled to reimbursement upon a commutated basis for shipment of 3,620 pounds of effects at the rate of $3.89 per cwt. (see Schedule A of Executive Order 9805) or $140.82, there still is due him the sum of $7.33 for the shipment undertaken by public carrier.

Action on the voucher should be taken accordingly. The voucher is returned herewith.

(B-73197)

TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTSSUCCESSIVE CHANGES OF STATION

Where the shipment of an employee's household effects from one official station to another was authorized on an actual expense basis under Executive Order No. 8588, as amended, but shipment actually was made to a third official station under a change-of-station authorization issued in accordance with the terms of Executive Order No. 9805 which changed the method of reimbursement for the shipment of household effects to a commuted basis, the amount of reimbursement allowable is to be measured by the provisions of the latter Executive order, even though the first change of station preceded the effective date thereof. An employee who was ordered from one official station to another and who, before shipment of his household effects to such new station, was transferred to a third station is entitled, under Executive Order No. 9805, to reimbursement on a commuted basis for shipment from a previous place of residence to the third station, even though it be in excess of the commuted cost from the second to the third station.

Where an employee's family traveled by privately owned automobile from a previous place of residence to his new official station-the last of two successive changes of station-after expiration of the time limitation fixed for the first change of official station, but within the time fixed for the second station change, the maximum amount of reimbursement allowable is the constructive cost of transportation from the second station to the new station by the most economical usually traveled route via mode of conveyance actually used, not to exceed the cost between such points by common carrier.

Comptroller General Warren to Anne K. Zack, Department of Commerce, March 12, 1948:

By letter of January 23, 1948, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, Department of Commerce, forwarded here for consideration your letter of January 15, 1948, transmitting a voucher in favor of Henry P. Jandacek for $249.50, alleged to be due for shipment of his household. effects and the transportation of his immediate family from Phillips, Wisconsin, to Minot, North Dakota, in November, 1947, incident to a series of permanent transfers of duty stations as an employee of the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and requesting a decision as to the proper amount of reimbursement allowable thereon.

By travel order No. 3-121.1, dated October 14, 1946, the claimant was directed to proceed on or about October 14 from Chicago, Illinois, his official station, to Bismarck, North Dakota, for the purpose of

« ÎnapoiContinuă »