_____________

                              August 15, 1997
                               _____________


                             GSBCA 13687-RELO


                    In the Matter of STANLEY E. ROUGHT


     Stanley E. Rought, Yuba City, CA, Claimant.

     Charles N. Stockwell, Directorate of Support Services, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for
Department of Defense.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     A finance officer at Beale Air Force Base (AFB) in California
has requested an opinion under 31 U.S.C.  3529 regarding the
propriety of paying a claim for temporary quarters subsistence
expenses (TQSE).  The claim was submitted by a civilian employee
assigned to that air base, Mr. Stanley E. Rought.  For the reasons
stated below, we conclude that the claim should be paid.  


                                Background

     In September 1993, claimant was issued orders transferring him
from Naval Air Station (NAS), Moffett Field, California, to Beale
AFB, California.  The orders authorized a TQSE allowance for sixty
days.  Mr. Rought's travel orders listed one dependent, a son who
was over the age of twelve.  The orders also showed an estimated
per diem of $115.50.  Explanatory materials in the record indicate
that this figure represents a maximum per diem of $66 for the
employee ($40 for lodging and $26 for meals and incidental expenses
(M&IE)) and three quarters that amount for his son.  

     This being Mr. Rought's first transfer, he had little
knowledge of the procedures to be followed.  He contends that he
was advised by personnel at Moffett Field and also understood from
printed material sent to him from Beale AFB that receipts would be
required for lodging expenses but not for meals as long as the
amount spent on meals did not exceed the allowed per diem rate.   

     The record for this case does, in fact, contain printed
instructions for employees which highlight the need of receipts for
lodging and professionally done laundry and dry cleaning.  The
instructions make no reference, however, to the additional
requirements set out in C13009-E of the Department of Defense Joint
Travel Regulations (JTR) that receipts be provided for any single
expense of $25 or more (including meal expenses for one or more
individuals) or an itemized statement showing the cost of each meal
for each day.      

     On October 2, 1993, Mr. Rought vacated his old residence.  On
October 4, he reported for duty at Beale AFB.  On that same date he
began his TQSE allowance.  Mr. Rought states that he retained
receipts for his lodging but not for his meals.  He further states
that in December 1993, after he had moved into his permanent
quarters, his lodging receipts were accidentally destroyed.  

     In January 1994, Mr. Rought discussed his claim with the base
finance office.  He states that he was told to get replacements for
the records that were destroyed and that meals would be treated at
the standard per diem rate.  His efforts to obtain duplicate
receipts for lodging were, for the most part, unsuccessful.  

     As the deadline for filing a claim approached, Mr. Rought
submitted a claim supported by a detailed "Statement In Absence Of
Receipt" (ACC Form 79) and a daily itemization sheet.  The
statement explains how the original lodging receipts were
accidentally destroyed.  On the itemization sheet, Mr. Rought
listed lodging for only twelve nights.  The record contains
receipts for nine of these twelve nights.  No other entries appear
for lodging on the itemization sheet.  The sheet does, however,
contain an entry for meals for each day the claimant was in
temporary quarters.  During the first week, the claimant was
accompanied by his one dependent.  For the remaining fifty-one
days, the employee lists meals only for himself.  For each day of
the first period, he lists meal costs totaling $45 per day.  For
the remaining period he lists meal costs totaling $25 per day.

     In a statement provided for the record, Mr. Rought writes
that, on presenting his claim to the finance officer, he was
advised that it was fraudulent and would not be processed.  He
strongly denies the allegation.  Nevertheless, recognizing that he
was advised to retain receipts for lodging and accepting the
responsibility for the loss of most of them, he is not pressing for
reimbursement of lodging costs for which he has no receipts.  Mr.
Rought continues to seek reimbursement, however, for that portion
of his per diem intended to cover meals.  He explains that the
situation regarding meals was considerably different from that
regarding lodging.  He states that, for meals, he was simply
advised that he should stay within the per diem limits.  He further
states with some emphasis that he did so.  He writes:  My meal
expenses did NOT exceed this allowable rate.  


                                Discussion

     The base finance officer denies that Mr. Rought was ever told
that his claim was fraudulent.  Rather, he states that he advised
Mr. Rought only that the claim could not be processed. 
Understandably, the finance officer is troubled by the nature of
the entries on the itemization sheet provided by Mr. Rought.  He is 
of the opinion that the uniformity of the amounts claimed for each
day's meals suggests that these may be estimates rather than actual
costs.  

     Section C13007-A.1 of the JTR expressly provides that
reimbursement for subsistence expenses will be only for "actual
subsistence expenses."  A similar provision appears in section
302-5.4 of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).  41 CFR 302-5.4. 
This is the requirement which serves as the basis for the finance
officer's concern.  

     We agree that, before paying Mr. Rought's claim, the agency
should be relatively certain that the claim represents actual
costs.  Certainly, if the claimant had retained receipts and kept
a contemporaneous itemization sheet, the actual costs could be
readily identified.  His failure to do so, however, is not
primarily attributable to his own lack of diligence but rather to
the failure of others to provide him with accurate guidance.  In
such a case, it would be fundamentally unfair to hold the claimant
to the rigorous standard normally applied in cases such as this. 
Given these circumstances, we do not consider the absence of the
requisite documentation to be a fatal deficiency.  There are in the
record other persuasive indications that the amount sought does, in
fact, represent actual costs associated with the claimant's TQSE. 

     First among these is the fact that the claimant himself
contends that they are actual expenses.  While Mr. Rought may labor
under the misapprehension that the finance officer challenges the
truth of this claim, the finance officer assures us this is not the
case.  Second, the reimbursement sought is for funds expended for
food -- a basic necessity.  Thus the probability that expenditures
were actually made is exceedingly high.  Third, the claimant
contends that he spent the amount claimed but nothing in excess of
that amount since he was determined to stay within the per diem
limit.  Furthermore, the amounts sought are, in fact, within the
M&IE limits of the allowable per diem.  Where meals are taken in
restaurants, we have previously concluded that the M&IE portion of
the allowable per diem represents a reasonable expenditure for a
day's meals.  In this case, nothing in the record suggests that the
meals were not taken in restaurants.  We, therefore, consider that
the amounts claimed for daily meals are reasonable.  Kevin S.
Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (1996).  The
reasonableness of these amounts only enhances the likelihood that
the expenditures were actually made.  

     In short, given the reasonableness of the amounts said to have
been actually spent, the fact that they were spent for a basic
necessity, and the fact that the claimant believed he could not
exceed the M&IE limits of his per diem and his insistence that he
did not do so, we are convinced that, notwithstanding the
uniformity of the amounts claimed, they can reasonably be accepted
as representing actual expenses rather than mere estimates. 

     The finance officer should, therefore pay the claim in
question.  We note in closing that there is virtually no
possibility that, in paying Mr. Rought s present claim for meals, 
the agency will be awarding him anything in excess of what he
actually paid for his total TQSE.  The total TQSE would normally
include the costs of lodging but, as pointed out above, Mr. Rought
has relinquished his claim for reimbursement of lodging costs for
which he no longer has receipts.  Given the length of time he was
in temporary quarters and the few receipts still in his possession,
this is obviously a significant sum.    

  
                                   _______________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge