REIMBURSEMENT TO PERSONNEL FOR PURCHASE OF SAFETY GLASSES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 27, 2001
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: May 11, 1973
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Rakease 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP?Wa7gRt14000040003-0
0,3 3
OGC Has Reviewed
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SUBJECT:
11 May 1973
Acting Chief, TSD Support Staff
Reimbursement to Personnel for Purchase
of Safety Glasses
1. You have requested the opinion of this Office as
to the legal propriety of reimbursing certain TSD employees for
the cost of prescription safety glasses.
2. It is understood TSD management has determined
that employees who work with high-speed drills, chemicals and
other dangerous things must wear some form of eye protection.
An employee whose vision is not corrected by prescription eye-
glasses wears safety goggles that are provided. Goggles, how-
ever, are not practical for an employee who must wear prescrip-
tion eyeglasses. Such an employee normally purchases and
wears plastic, prescription ground, safety glasses, the cost of
which exceeds the eyeglasses he would normally purchase.
3. The basic law bearing on your question is found
at 5 U. S. C. A. 7903.
Appropriations available for the procure-
ment of supplies and material or equipment
are available for the purchase and maintenance
of special clothing and equipment for the pro-
tection of personnel in the performance of
their assigned tasks.
In a 1963 opinion which is directly on point, the Comptroller General
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
Approved For Rase 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793RW300040003-0
at 42 Comp. Gen. 626, 627 cited the above statute and stated:
(I)t is our view that.., employees engaged
in hazardous duties who normally wear correc-
tive eyeglasses or other vision correctives
and who, for their own protection, are required
by an agency to wear safety glasses in connection
with the performance of such duties may be
furnished prescription ground safety glasses at
Government expense, since in such a case
prescription ground safety glasses would be
necessary 'for the protection' of such em-
ployees 'in the performance of their assigned
task.' ... Of course all safety glasses
furnished the employees by the Government, in-
cluding the prescription ground safety glasses,
remain the property of the Government and
subject to its control.
In a subsequent opinion clarifying that part of 42 Comp. Gen. 626
which dealt with reimbursement for the cost of an eye examination,
he stated:
(I)t is our view that eye refraction examina-
tions for prescription safety glasses may be
authorized at Government expense only in those
instances where the employee involved had not
previously worn glasses or where it is adminis-
tratively determined that his present prescription
(or glasses) is inadequate. B-157389, 1 June 1972.
4. Accordingly, the answer to your inquiry is as follows.
You may legally reimburse the full costs of prescription ground
safety glasses. These glasses, however, remain the property of the
Government and subject to its control. You may also pay for the eye
examinations if the conditions immediately above are met.
b bib Lre?..,Z3 rd.! t.-4 puns e
cc: DDM&S
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
GMB:ks
Distribution:
Original 7 Addressee
C- EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES w/c incoming, OGC 73-0437
1 - GMB Signer
1 - Chrono
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
Nom,
25X1A
CONFIDENTIAL 7 3 ()/y
Approved For ReZease 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-007931W30004 003-0
14 March 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: Office of General Counsel
ATTENTION
SUBJECT
Reimbursement to Personnel for
Purchase of Safety Glasses
1. TSD has a number of employees whose work is hazardous
to the eyes. For example: laboratory personnel who work with
high-speed drills, others who work with dangerous chemicals, etc.
In order to protect these employee's eyes, Safety Goggles
have been used. However, for those personnel requiring
prescription lenses, these goggles are not practical.
2. From a local optical company we have obtained the
information that safety glasses (i.e., plastic lenses) are more
expensive than ordinary prescription glasses. These safety
glasses look no different than ordinary glasses and may be worn
by personnel not only on the job but at all times.
3. It would be appreciated if you would let us know
whether we may pay for the entire cost of safety prescription
glasses or only a portion of the cost.
TSD/Support Staff
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP7 -0Q70313.(100300Q4000 -0
I
I IMPOET CI. BY.Q.Q.2.4.1i
niciflFNTIAi
25X1A
ApProved For Release 20E142405/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R0003
626 DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERN1
[42
Since Mr. Corbin was returning from his temporary duty station
on a workday, performed no labor or work while so kz:J.:1g7, and the
travel was not under arduous conditions, he is not entitio, to overtime
compensation for the travel time extending beyond his rei-larly sched-
uled hours of duty on Friday, September 28, 1962.
. This ? case is distinguishable from that of an emp1oyc who claims
overtime for travel time, after regular working hours, wt perform-
ing the duty of driving a Government truck, rather than -:.sing it solely
as a means of transportation to and from a point of duty and under
other than arduous conditions. See B-120896, Octol,er 7, 1954;
B-127979, June 22, 1956; 30 Comp. Gen. 72. Whether under other cir-
cumstances there would be actual work performed while traveling or
travel performed under arduous conditions for which overtime com-
pensation would be payable would depend on the facts of the case.
The voucher, which is returned, May not be certified for payment.
B--151243
Appropriations?Availability?Safety Glasses
Although the cost of prescription ground safety glasses (f ties and lenses)
which an agency requires employees to wear for their protection may be paid
from appropriated funds pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 118g; which authorizes the pur-
chase of special clothing and equipment for the protection of employees, who are
engaged in hazardous duties, in the performance of their assigned task's, the
glasses to remain the property of the Government and subject to its control, the
cost of eye examinations and prescriptions may not be paid by an agency, unless
an employee is unable to furnish a prescription, or that a preseription cannot be
made from glasses he normally wears, the necessity for preseription ground
safety lenses presupposing employees normally Wear or require vision correc-
tives made up from a prescription.
To Ruth H. LaBoute, Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, May 8, 1963:
Your letter of April 4, 1.963 (your reference, FIN :), requests our
decision whether you may certify for payment two invokes as follows:
(1) Invoice in the amount of $16.65 in favor of the American Optical Company
billing the Northeastern Radiological Health Laboratory, Winchester, Mass. for
prescription eye glasses (frames and lenses) for an employee of the Laboratory,
Mr. Casper Ilegge.
(2) Invoice in the amount of 1.1) in favor of Dr. Jerome Roberts, Optometrist,
458 Main Street, Woburn, Mass. covering eye examination and prescription for
the purchase of safety glasses for the same employee.
You advise that these invoices were paid by the cashier and .included
as subvouchers in his replenishment voucher.
The record discloses that the management of the Northeastern
Radiological Health Laboratory, Public Health Service, Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, after a thorough review of its
safety programs determined that safety glasses were necessary for the
safety of employees working with toxic chemicals, abrasives and
Approved For Release 2002/05/17: CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
1.42
on
he
ne
d-
ais
iily
icr
4 ;
or
Cs)
aid
ur-
:are
the
the
less
t be
and
rec.-
ci-
en]:
?cvs :
any
for
cry,
rist,
for
ded
tern
ient
! its
the
and
Comp. Gen.] DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
627
radioactive materials. Accordingly, personnel working with these
materials have been ordered and required to wear safety glasses.
IIence, it was felt that the Public Health. Service should pay for the
prescriptions as well as the frames and lenses.
The record discloses that the reasons for ordering the type of safety
glasses used rather than goggles or other type safety devices are as
follows:
1. Those who must wear glasses could not substitute a goggle unless it is to be
a prescription lens.
2. It is not practical to wear goggles on a continuous basis as our bench
chemists, chemistry technicians and maintenance personnel would be requirell
to do so if they did not have safety glasses.
3. To require a shielding over an individual's glasses for a full shift would
place an uncomfortable weight on the bridge of the nose and cause the glass
to constantly slip down.
4. Although prescription safety lenses are an item only of use to the
individual for whom they are ground, their weight plus that of the frames
does not provide a' "comfortable" pair of glasses to be used as a substitute for
regular glasses.
'Section 13 of the act of August 2 1946 Ch 744 60 Stat. 809
? 7
5 U.S.C. 118g, provides that?
Sec. 13. Appropriations available for the procurement of supplies and material
or equipment shall be available for the purchase and maintenance of special
clothing and equipment for the protection of personnel in the performance of
their assigned tasks. [Italics supplied.]
In view of the above-cited provisions of law there is no question
but that an agency's appropriations may be used to purchase safety
glasses for the protection of employees engaged in hazardous duties.
See 32 Comp. Gen. 229. Further, it is our view that under this
provision of law employees engaged in hazardous duties who normally
wear corrective eyeglasses or other vision correctives and who, for
their own protection, are required by an agency to wear safety glasses
in connection with the performance of such duties may be furnished
prescription ground safety glasses at Government expense, since in
such a case prescription ground safety glasses would be necessary
"for the protection" of such employees "in the performance of their
assigned tasks." Accordingly, the cashier may be reimbursed the
amount ($16.65) paid the American Optical Company for prescrip-
tion ground safety glasses (frames and lenses) for Mr. Hegge. Of
course all safety glasses furnished the employees by the Government,
including the prescription ground safety glasses, remain the property
of the Government and subject to its control.
Concerning the cost of the eye examination and prescription, the
necessity for prescription ground safety lenses presupposes that the
employee involved normally wears or requires some type of vision
correctives made up from a prescription. Therefore, in the absence
of a showing that Mr. Hegge was unable to furnish a prescription
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
628 DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL [42 (
from which the prescription ground safety glasses could be made, or
that a prescription could not be made from his present glasses, i.e., t
from the glasses he normally wears, the cashier may not be reim-
bursed for the amount paid to Dr. Jerome Roberts for the eye exam- ]
ination of Mr. Hegge.
The invoices submitted are returned herewith.
E B-151033 ]
Mileage?Military Personnel--Public Business Travel Necessity?
Personal Convenience Transfer Orders Changed
A Navy member transferred at his request, for his eonvenience, at no cost to
the Government to a ship which is deployed before he is required to report
aboard, who when his services are requested by the ship's commanding officer
is directed under an endorsement to his permissive orders to travel to join the
ship is entitled to a mileage allowance, the travel constituting entitlement to
the permanent change of station allowance contemplated by paragraph 4150
of the Joint Travel Regulations under the permissive orders modified for the
convenience of the Government, and the member having traveled beyond the
place designated in his original orders on public business, the expenses of
the travel are the obligation of the Government and he may be paid a mileage
allowance and credited for the leave charged for the travel time.
To Lieutenant (jg) D. N. Hull, Department of the Navy, May 9,
1963:
By second indorsement dated February 18, 1963, the Comptroller
of the Navy forwarded here your letter of January 4, 1963, request-
ing an advance decision as to the entitlement of Howard Eugene
Moser, 285 02 69, DCCA, USN, to mileage allowance for travel per-
formed from Norfolk, Virginia, to Key West, Florida, incident to
his permanent change of station orders of November 5, 1962. The
request for decision was assigned Control No. 63-4 by the Per Diem,
Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.
The record shows that on October 9, 1962, the member who was
assigned to duty on board the U.S.S. Sturdy (MS0-194) requested
that he be transferred to any ship or station in the Severn River
Naval Command, Potomac River Naval Command or the Norfolk,
Virginia, area with the understanding that if the request for trans-
fer was granted he would bear all expenses involved and that there
would be no cost to the Government. By orders dated November 5,
1962, he was ordered to report for duty not later than November 16,
1962, to the Commanding Officer, 1.T.S.S. Oxford (AG-159), at Nor-
folk, Virginia, with delay of 10 days en route to count as leave. In
the orders it was stated. that the transfer was authorized at the mem-
ber's request for personal convenience and was to be executed at no
cost to the Government. The orders also provided that in case the
member did not desire to bear the expense of the transfer he should
regard the authorization as revoked.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
Approved ForRfilease 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793RW)0300040 30
sa,R,
1
/
*i
?
41.
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548
D457389
Dear Mr. Secretaryl
JUN 1 1972
Reference is nade to our letter of January 21, 1972, B,157389, to
you concerning that element of-the Air Force oecupotional vision program,
es set forth in APR 160-112 N?. June 1961, With chanLe 1 dated 22 June
1967), vhich authori%es eye refraction examinations for civilian employees
who are to be supplied with prescription safety eyewear. Under paragraph 3
of the regulation such examinationo are provided, vithout cost to the
employee, through Government medical facilities or by contract with pri-
vate refractionists. We noted that under pararaph lh an existing pre- .
scription for corrective lenses may be accepted in lieu of a new refraction
exeozination if minimum visual standards are met by that prescription.
However, ve indicated our impression that the Lcneral practice under
AFR 160-112 is to provide such examinations in all eases, whilo acceptance
of an exioting proocription is considered only at the request of an
employee.
We expressed reservations concerning the propriety of the Air Force
practice in 1iht of our decision at 42 Cp. Gen. 626 (1963), which
approved the eyIDonditure of toppropriatod funds to purelse prescription
safety eyevear 'out declined to extend ouch authority to payment of eye
refraction examinations in connection therewith absent a shooino; that an
adequate proscription could not be othel-wise obtaioed. We indicated that
the Department oC: the Army in its rerailations (AR liD-5) treats eye refme-
tion epuvainatioa for safety lasses as the responsibility of the enployee.
In view of the co.oego1n5, ye requested a responce to the l'olloving onestfoos:
1. Does the Air Force folloy a ;7.,;cnera1 practice of providing refrac-
tion comminations for civilian employees who require preocripoion safety
eyewoar?
2. If so, 1-or . is this practice juotificd, particularly in view-of -
our decision at 42 Comp. Gen. 626?
3. Is there any reason why the Air Force prorrram should not be
modified by -making application of puragr.woh 14b of AF R 160-112 mandatory?
4. Are there any circumstances in which application of paragraph 141)
you'd not serve to renter the provision of refraction cor.00linatieos
Unlleccecary?
PUBLISHED DECISION
51 Comp. Can.
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300Cr40003=0-
I
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793RW300040003-0
13-157389
4r letter dated rhrch 24, 1972, frora Walter A. 'Willson, Office L,
the General Counsel, ThalArtnent of the Air Force, we axe advised t.
the Air Force does generally furnish refraction exa.ninations under -L..
circurastances described herein. The basic pesition of Air Force is
stated by Mr. Vinson as follous:
"* * * The Air Force practice rests, in the final
analysis, on the need to obtain reasonable avmmnee
that prescription sfety glasses bein provided at
Government expense are in fact fully suitable for their
intended purpose. The Curgeon General of the Air Force
has determined that, in the absence of such ao(suranee,
acceptance of preexisting prescriptions is inr,avisable
from both a medical as well as a safety dpoint. It
is his profess:lonfa judmant that the reDatively sn11.1
additional expense of a current o=linztion Is more than
offset by the additionsl d:rweo of protection against the
dan7:rs inherent in eye 11,.-.zardolas envilAenments. Vere this
reqlrement to be relaxed, there would be a significant
Inereme in the risk ol visual iripaiment, eira-r,a to Csv-
erm/ent property and even physical inry to tic c.17)loye
and his co-workers. * * *"
Pr. Willson distinF.uishes our decision at 712 Comp. Gen. 626 on the b.'. 1
that there was no luaieetion therein of an e.d7An1strative d7zternin
that considcrations of safety end et-oloyce we. rmluired that p.
saription safety eyevear be ground only froi/ vry recent preoriptio,1:
a.* that a degree of control over e=natio4s be retained. On the o
hand, it is stated that the Ibpartment of the Mr Poree had mazie sc
detcrainations with respect to its occupational vision pro1-c.m, iiT
concernin?; the possibility of mlUn3 11:andAte:7 p,rh 1kb of A:7?1
it is stf.-.ted in the encles%Ire to 1:e. Willnon's letter that:
"The Department of the Air Force 'would prefer to avoid
aceep!=ce of 'el.ttsidei prescriptions as a general rule.
It is not advis.able frala nadical or safety starytoint
to utilize a, proscription which a visually deficient
worker has obtained in the past, when equippin;1 him with
proscription safety glasses for eye-bazacdeuz work. The
Air Force has an oblication to protect the interezt of
the Government and of fellow workers of the o;.I.Acyco
involved, as ;Tell co those of the edloyee himself. This
obligaLion cannot to Vulfilled unless all measures reason-
ably availsble are utilized to assure that the visually
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0
? 2
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RbP75-00793%),90300040003-0
1
B-157389
deficient employee in an eYe-hatnrCaus job is not a
- hazard to himself or his fellou.vorkers and Is' not
further imp%iring his vision. To this enC, the regu-
lation preT.eribes initial eye eraminations and priodie
eye exarainations and p,.1rmits the Air Force a degree of
control over the conduct of the examinatiolas."
Our decision at 1.2 Cp. Cons 626 cpproving the provision of
prescription aafety eyeuezo, for the protection of vif,rAlly deficient
employees in eyo-haardoua jobJ, was based upon se2tion 33 of the net
approved Awl:ust 2, 194-6, ch. 744, Go Stat. 809, reenaeted and codified
at 5 7903, vhich states in Dart!
"? 79013. rroteetive clothim and equipment.
"Appropriations nvailablo for the procurement
of supplies and material or esuipment are available
Lor the purchase and uainten=ee of cmecial clothing
and equipxlent for the protection of personnel in the
porferitance of their assiod tasks. * *
In addition, section 19(a) of the Occupationnl Safety end health Act of
1970, approvea Lecenber 29, 1970, Pub. L. 91-56, 84 Mat. 1609, 29 U.S.C.
663(n), rewires men Federal areney to ectblich and tiaitItnin an effec-
tive and coxprehensive mteupatjoml safety r.nd he.?:Lth prcrala. Eee also,
5 U.S.C. 7902. 1/4,123 the authority of the Air Fore;!, to surply preeription
safety cyclx=, where necessary for the pretction of employees is
uncanestioned.
Az to the cost of the eye refraction examinationfl, in 42 Comp. Gen.
626 ve held, in effect, that in the absence of a showin3 that the emnloyee
involved %-ral; unable to furnish a prescrintion from which prescriptien-
creund caTety classes could be ra,:ie, or that a prescri,ptien could not he
mtda frall the el-fployeo's present glasses (i.e., from the glasses he nor-
ually vcars), no cost of eye refraction exalliinations vas not for payment -
by the Government.
Our holding in that case vas not intended to preclude eye -refraction
examinnticus it Government expense for visually deficient employees requir-
ing presvription mfety Glasses in those instaxsee :here the e'3ployee in-
volved had not previously worn glasses or vhere incident to a vitlual survey
an or-plc'yee's e-Lst4r ce3m:7111tive2y dz:tr.....min..:d to be
,iLadute (i.e., /,2 Co).1). c; is clarified
0oroi,431y. EaJevor, to the etent that A.I3-160-112 c2.a:orizes eye
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0., 3
Approved For %geese 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793RW0300040003-0
D-l57.389
refraction exAminations at Goiernment expense without requiring an -
administrative determination as to the adequacy of the employee's
existing prescription (or glasses), it is our view that the regula-
tion in question should be amended ao as to rae clear that eye -
refraction examinations for prescription safety relasf;es may be authorized
at Government expenses only in those instances where the employee in-
volved had not previously worn glasses or where it is adatinistratively.
determined that his present prescription (or glasses) is inadequate.
a
Sincerely yours,
Paul G. Dembling
Acting Comptronor General
of the United State
The Honorable
The Secretary of the Air Force
? 1-'?
Approved For Release 2002/05/17 : CIA-RDP75-00793R000300040003-0