GAO-01-231R DOL Relocation Allowance

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 8, 2000

The Honorable Peter Hoekstra

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

Subject: Investigation of Alleged Improper Relocation Allowance at the Department of

Labor, Office of Inspector General

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This letter responds to your September 28, 2000, request and our subsequent discussions with

your office concerning allegations of fraudulent and abusive personnel practices within the

Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Inspector General (OIG). You requested that we

investigate the circumstances surrounding certain permanent change of station (PCS)1

transfers of OIG employees between the New York City, New York, and Newark, New Jersey,

district offices because of allegations that these PCS transfers were a result of “favoritism”

and that payment for moves was fraudulent and abusive. Your office specifically requested

that we investigate a particular PCS transfer between the OIG’s Atlantic City (Mays Landing)

and Newark, New Jersey, offices that occurred in 1996.

We interviewed current and former DOL and OIG officials and reviewed pertinent

documents. We conducted our investigation from October to November 2000

in accordance with investigative standards established by the President’s Council on Integrity

and Efficiency.

In brief, we identified six transfers of OIG employees between or within the New York City

and Newark district offices from 1995 to November 2000 that were based on documented

business needs of the OIG, such as change in workload. Of these six reassignments, three

were from the Atlantic City office to the Newark office. Of these three reassignments, two

were considered for PCS and related relocation allowances. One of these was approved. We

found that the decisions to grant or deny PCS and related relocation allowances were based

on the needs of the OIG and availability of funds and do not appear to result from favoritism.

Further, the reimbursement associated with the PCS was in accordance with the Federal

Travel Regulations (FTR).

Reassignments Based on OIG Needs

Between 1995 and November 2000, there were six reassignments: three between the New

York City and Newark offices and three between the Atlantic City (Mays Landing) and

1

Under the Federal Travel Regulations at 41 C.F.R. Parts 301 and 302, the government can reimburse

an employee for certain costs associated with travel and relocation to a temporary or permanent

change of duty station.
Page 2 GAO-01-231R DOL Relocation Allowance

Newark offices. The decision to reassign agents to the Newark office was based on a shift in

the OIG’s workload. The three reassignments between the New York City and Newark

offices did not involve PCS. However, the three reassignments from Atlantic City to the

Newark office were initially all 1-year temporary duty station changes. When the temporary

duty assignments were extended into a second year, one of the employees requested a

permanent change of station. This permanent reassignment was subsequently approved

based on the Newark office’s workload and the employee’s specific technical experience and

expertise. In addition, a relocation allowance was approved incident to the PCS. After this

PCS was authorized, a second employee on temporary duty status requested a PCS and a

relocation allowance. The request was denied. This employee appealed the decision and

received written explanation as to why the one request was approved and his was denied.

OIG records clearly showed that the PCS decisions were based on business needs or lack of

funds and do not appear to have been based on favoritism.

PCS Based on OIG Needs and in Accordance With Regulations

DOL and OIG officials authorized the relocation allowance for the employee who received

PCS in accordance with the FTR and the DOL Relocation Travel Guide (DOL Guide),2

which

supplements the FTR. The FTR allows an employee to receive a relocation allowance

provided that the employee’s old and new posts of duty are at least 10 miles apart.3

The

employee’s new duty station in Newark and the old one in Mays Landing, New Jersey, are

about 120 miles apart.4

Therefore, the PCS move more than met the 10-mile minimum in the

FTR.

We also reviewed OIG guidance entitled, OIG Instructional Guide Permanent Change of

Station (OIG Guide). It causes some confusion because it is more limiting than either the

FTR or the DOL guide. We identified two specific expenditures, totaling about $6,000, for the

Mays Landing-to-Newark move that did not comply with the OIG Guide. However, OIG

officials told us they do not follow this guide and rely instead on the FTR as amplified by the

DOL Guide. Our review of the employee’s vouchers, the FTR, and the DOL Guide indicates

that the employee was qualified to receive payments for (1) a 10-day househunting trip and

(2) 31 days of temporary quarters subsistence expense (TQSE) while awaiting the delivery of

his household goods to his new residence. The OIG in fact approved and reimbursed about

$1,200 for the househunting trip and $4,800 for the TQSE; and those reimbursements were

consistent with the requirements of the FTR and the DOL Guide.

With regard to the expenditure for househunting, both the FTR and the DOL Guide in effect

at the time provided that if the employee was on temporary duty at the new post of duty

when the househunting took place, discretion should be exercised in approving the expenses

of the trip. In this case, we note that the employee was on a long-term temporary assignment

at the new duty post but that he was not receiving either a travel allowance or TQSE at the

time of the househunting trip. The OIG Guide, on the other hand, categorically prohibits

househunting expenses if the employee is on temporary duty at the new post of duty.

Despite the fact that the employee was not receiving any travel allowance, if the OIG Guide

were controlling, the househunting trip could not have been approved because he was on

temporary duty at the time.

2 DOL Relocation Travel Guide for Department of Labor Employees, (Jan. 2000 ed.). DOL officials

advised us that although this is a revised edition, the pertinent portions of the DOL Guide have not

been changed since 1996.

3

41 C.F.R. § 302-1.3 (1996). The DOL Guide also allowed short-distance transfers. The OIG

Instructional Guide Permanent Change of Station is silent on this point. 4

We checked the distances in this investigation using two different Internet mapping services.
Page 3 GAO-01-231R DOL Relocation Allowance

The expenditure for temporary quarters was for the 31-day period between the time that the

employee was required to vacate his old residence and the time his new residence was

available for occupancy. Under the FTR in effect in 1996, an employee was entitled to TQSE

while awaiting the arrival of household goods at the new residence, irrespective of the

distance of the move.5 Under the OIG Guide, however, TQSE is not payable if the distance

between the old residence and the old post of duty is less than 40 miles farther than the

distance between the old residence and the new duty post. In other words, employees are

expected to bear the additional commuting burden for the short term if the extra distance

traveled is less than 40 miles. Unlike the FTR, the OIG Guide makes no provision for TQSE

when an employee who moved only a short distance had no permanent housing available at

either the old or new post of duty. We determined that the employee in question would not

have been entitled to the TQSE reimbursement under the principle stated in the OIG Guide,

because the extra distance traveled from the old residence to the new duty station was

9 miles short of the 40-mile requirement.6

OIG officials told us that they do not use the OIG Guide because it is not intended to change

departmental travel policy. In this regard, the introduction to the OIG Guide states that its

purpose is to answer frequently asked questions and to supplement published DOL

management directives. The OIG Guide expressly states that it is for information only and

should not be interpreted as legally binding. Further, OIG officials informed us that they plan

to discontinue distribution of the OIG Guide.

-----

We are sending copies of this letter to interested congressional committees and agency

officials. The letter will also be available on GAO’s home page, www.gao.gov. If you have

any questions about this investigation, please call me at (202) 512-6455 or Assistant Director

William Hamel at (202) 512-7433. Senior Special Agent Andrew O’Connell was a key

contributor to this investigation.

Sincerely yours,

Robert H. Hast

Managing Director

Office of Special Investigations

(600784)

5

41 C.F.R. § 302-5.2 (h) (1996). Under the DOL Guide, TQSE could be approved if it was

“advantageous to the government.”

6

From the old residence to the new post of duty, the distance by the shortest route was 80 miles as

compared to 49 miles from the old residence to the old post of duty—a difference of 31 miles.