About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-187825 1 (1978-01-03)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadfml0001 and id is 1 raw text is: DECIBIN FILE: B-187825 YmE fCMPTRI...LERN GENSAL 4OF THE uni-imc ETATEE WAHIN. .TON. D. . 2054 DAE: Anuai- 3, 1978 MATTER OF: William D. Vogel - Relocation Expenses - Reconsideration CIGEST: An employee claias relocation expenses on basis that his transfer was in the best interest of the Goidrnment and claims his request was denied because of budgtt constraints. Record reveals that budgetary limitarons was not basis for denial. Claim was properly denied as transfer was for con- venience of employee. This decision is in response to a request by William D. Vogel for reconsideration o! our decision B-187825, February 11, 1977, which sustained the disallowL..e by our Claims Division of his claim for relocation expenses incidenc to a permanent change of station from Washington, D.C., to Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Vogel's claim was disallowed on the basis that ft is within the discretion of the employing agency to determine whether a transfer is in the interest of the Government or for the convenience of the employee and because the Department of Justice, exercising that discrtion, had determined the transfer to be for the convenience of the employee. The facts of this case were fu!ly stated in our decision of February 11, 1977, and will not be repeated except: as pertinent to the present discussion of the case. Mr. Vogel poses the following question which srves as his basis for reconsideration: Does the EOUSA /Executi.'e Office fot U.S. Attorneys7 have the authority to deny a claim for relocation expenses on the basis of a long standing erroneous policy of refusal to pay such claims which is based .olely upin budgetary limitations without any independent determination ot whose interest is primarily served by the transfer? The thrust of Mr. Vogel's appeal is that EOUSA denied his request because of budgetary limitations without a proper determination as required by para. 2-1.3 of the Federal Travel Regulations as to whether or not his transfer was in the intecest of the Government. Mr. Vogel's suggestion to the contrary, budgetary constraints do not appear to have been the basis for the agency's action on the question of reimbursement of his relocation expenses. This is so because the record before this Office contains a specific finding that Mr. Vogel's transfer was primarily for his convenience. h f4V1 I - Cg) I I F' L A. - ~Ij I

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most