Director, Nsiad

• Decision Date: 08 July 1983
• Docket Number: B-211586
• Parties: DIRECTOR, NSIAD - FRANK CONAHAN:
• Court: Comptroller General of the United States

DIRECTOR, NSIAD - FRANK CONAHAN:

No. B-211586

Comptroller General of the United States

July 8, 1983

Subject use of government vehicles by relatives of government officials - B-211586-o.M.

This responds to a request by senior associate director henry W Connor for our opinion on two questions related to your ongoing review of the executive motor pool operation in the office of the secretary of defense (OSD). The first question concerns the legality of the use of chauffeured government vehicles by unaccompanied relatives and domestic employees of officials of the osd. For the reasons explained below, it is our opinion that such use is not in accordance with the law.

The second question was whether the appointment calendars of defense department employees and officials are considered official government documents which GAO would be entitled to examine. As is also explained below, we conclude that in the course of conducting legitimate auditing activities, GAO is legally entitled to examine the appointment calendars of DOD officials and employees, to the extent that those calendars are used predominately in the execution of the government's business - as opposed to the private affairs of the official or employee.

Discussion

Question 1: pursuant to a request from the chairman of the senate committee on government affairs, your staff has been auditing the use of government vehicles by officials of the office of the secretary of defense (OSD). Your staff has discovered that during the period of June through November of 1982 there were at least 51 instances in which relatives of employees or officials of OSD were transported to and from various locations in the D.C. Metropolitan area (including suburban Virginia and Maryland, as far away as reston Virginia and annapolis, Maryland) via chauffeur-driven government-owned or leased vehicles belonging to the executive motor pool that serves osd. The persons transported in this manner included the wives of the secretary of defense (mrs. Weinberger); the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs (mrs. Beary); the assistant secretary of defense for manpower, reserve affairs, and logistics (mrs Kolb); the assistant secretary of defense for international security (mrs. West); the assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs (mrs. Rourke); the director of the joint chiefs of staff (mrs. Dalton); the military assistant to the secretary of defense (mrs. Jones); and the secretary of defense's representative to s.T.A.R.T. (mrs. Mobbs). Also transported in this manner were the son, daughter, and domestic servant of the secretary of defense, and the four children of the assistant secretary of defense for manpower reserve affairs, and logistics.

All of the trips in question were made using "pool" cars, that is, cars which are available upon request to various officials of osd, rather than "dedicated" cars, which are cars that have been specifically and individually designated for the exclusive use of particular officials. (your staff advised us that they were not able to obtain any information concerning the use of "dedicated" cars in OSD because trip logs are not maintained by DOD for "dedicated" vehicles.) The trip logs of the "pool" cars used in these 51 instances do not clearly reveal the purposes of those trips, but instead, simply list the pick-up points and destinations for each trip, including various residences, motels, theatres, cafes, airports, libraries, orthopedic clinics, and several "as directed" entries. On each trip, the vehicle was driven by a government employee or military member, and the passenger was not accompanied by the OSD official to whom the passenger was related (AS a spouse, child or domestic employee).

Section 1344 of title 31 of the U.S.C. Provides that except as otherwise authorized by law, appropriations "May be expended to maintain, operate, and repair passenger motor vehicles or aircraft of the united states government that are used only for an official purpose." In 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1349, it is further provided that any official or employee of the government who "willfully uses or authorizes the use of a passenger motor vehicle or aircraft owned or leased by the united states government in violation of section 1344 shall be suspended without pay or removed from office by the head of the agency.

See also 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1301, formerly 31 U.S.C. Sec. 628, which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for purposes other than those for which the appropriation was made. As noted below, we think that agency funds were never appropriated for the purpose of accommodating non- government persons traveling unaccompanied by their governmental sponsor on presumably personal errands. However, we understand that none of the officials concerned were aware that the uses of the cars and chauffeurs which they permitted were unauthorized. In any event, the government is entitled to reimbursements from either the responsible employees or officials, or the transported individuals, for the costs and expenses incurred in the provision of those transportation services. The agency is required to take aggressive collection action to recover these amounts as debts owed to the united states. Federal claims collection standards, 4 C.F.R. Sec. 102.1.

While the logs do not explain the specific purposes of each of the 51 trips in question, we find it hard to conceive of any instance - at least in the united states - when transportation of unaccompanied private persons (i.E., persons who are not themselves employees or officials of the government) at government expense would constitute official business. The fact that the transported persons are the spouses, children, or domestic employees of high-ranking officials does not, in and of itself, provide adequate legal justification for such an expenditure of appropriated funds. Compare 61 Comp.Gen. 260 (1982), affirmed on reconsideration, B-206173, August 3, 1982 (expenses incurred by spouses of cabinet secretaries and other high-ranking officials found not to be for official purposes). See also B-149372 o.M., August 23, 1977 (president carter not authorized to provide EX president ford with transportation via government aircraft for non official purposes). For example, neither of Mrs. Weinberger's trips between her home and her orthopedic clinics were justified as medical emergencies for which transportation by government car was the only means of transportation available. Similarly the numerous trips to dulles airport from the weinberger residence provided on different occasions to the secretary's wife, son, and domestic servant were not justified as necessary for security reasons.

We should note that we have, in the past, approved travel for non official passengers on a space-available basis, incident to an otherwise authorized use...