________________________________________ November 25, 1996 ________________________________________ GSBCA 13703-RELO In the Matter of STEVEN D. WINN Steven D. Winn, Dover, NC, Claimant. D. Lisenby, Director, Financial Policy and Systems Directorate, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Kansas City, MO, appearing for the Department of Defense. BORWICK, Board Judge. Mr. Steven D. Winn is a civilian employee of the United States Marine Corps. He relocated from Norfolk, Virginia to Cherry Point, North Carolina and incurred a $3,750 expense for meals as part of his temporary quarters subsistence expense (TQSE) allowance during the period of his relocation. Mr. Winn used his travel advance to defray the expense. However, upon review of Mr. Winn's itemization of expenses, the agency determined that Mr. Winn did not exercise prudence in procuring meals for himself and his family. The agency believed that the expenses incurred were excessive and were averaged over the TQSE period to preclude the submission of substantiating receipts. The agency concluded it had overpaid Mr. Winn's travel advance by $2,143.96 and determined that Mr. Winn was indebted to the agency for that amount. Mr. Winn appealed that determination to the General Accounting Office (GAO). For the following reasons, we conclude that Mr. Winn's meal expenses were reasonably incurred. We conclude, however, that many of the meal tips were excessive; Mr. Winn is indebted to the Government for $95.72, which represents the over tipping based on a fifteen percent tip rate. From November 11 to December 30, 1994, for himself, his wife, and twenty-one month old son, Mr. Winn incurred meal expenses, which never exceeded twenty-five dollars per meal. All meals were commercially prepared. Mr. Winn would add a tip to the exact cost of each meal, the resulting sum amounting to twenty-five dollars. On workdays, Mr. Winn would eat five dollars worth of food purchased from vending machines for each breakfast and lunch. On those occasions, the meals incurred by his spouse and child (plus tip) would equal twenty dollars. Mr. Winn kept a running log of expenditures as he and his spouse incurred them, and was thus able to record the exact dollars and cents of his meal expenses. A typical day's expenditure for a weekend (Saturday, November 12, 1994) was: Meal Cost Tip Meal at work Total Cost Breakfast 19.05 5.95 -.- 25.00 Lunch 19.96 5.04 -.- 25.00 Dinner 23.41 1.59 -.- 25.00 A typical day's expenditure for a workday (Monday, November 21, 1994) was: Meal Cost Tip Meal at work Total Cost Breakfast 15.03 4.97 5.00 25.00 Lunch 17.62 2.38 5.00 25.00 Dinner 24.06 .94 -.- 25.00 When it came time to substantiate his expenses, Mr. Winn submitted a voucher which listed only the twenty-five dollar sum for each meal. The agency denied the claim because it considered that the amounts were estimates rather than actual expenditures. The agency allowed Mr. Winn to re-submit an itemized statement. This time, Mr. Winn submitted a statement which listed the dollars and cents spent for each meal, including the tips. The agency again demanded the refund from Mr. Winn, maintaining that his revised itemized statement was not acceptable evidence to allow payment of the meals. On September 6, 1996, the Board held a conference with the claimant and the agency. The agency there argued that the meal charges were excessive. The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) in effect at the time Mr. Winn incurred the TQSE provided that subsistence expenses while occupying temporary quarters shall include meals, and that "reimbursement will be limited to actual expenses incurred, not to exceed the maximum amount authorized, providing expenses are directly related to occupancy of temporary quarters, are reasonable as to amount and can be substantiated." JTR C13000. The JTR also provided that "reimbursement will be only for actual subsistence expenses incurred provided these are incident to occupancy of temporary quarters and are reasonable as to amount." JTR C13007- 1.a. The actual expenses were to be itemized in a manner that would permit at least a review of amounts spent daily for lodging, meals and other allowable items of subsistence expenses. JTR C13007-1.b. For locations within the continental United States, maximum per diem rates for employees' first thirty days of TQSE allowance were $66 for the employee, $44 for the spouse, and $33 for dependents under twelve years of age. JTR C13007-1.c.1.a. The JTR also provided that "receipts and supporting documen- tation must be furnished" with a claim for reimbursement of allowable expenses. JTR C13008-5.a. At the time, receipts were required for any single expense (including meals) exceeding twenty- five dollars. The JTR required a statement showing the cost of each meal for each day, by date. The location where and by whom meals were taken were also to be shown. JTR C13008-5.b.3. Based on the paucity of information provided in Mr. Winn's original expense submission, the agency erroneously concluded Mr. Winn estimated his expenses. He did not. As we have seen, Mr. Winn contemporaneously recorded his family's expenditures for each meal, adding tips to arrive at the twenty-five dollar figure. Rather than "estimating," Mr. Winn kept precise track of his meal expenses. Mr. Winn submitted his contemporaneous log to the Board. We have reviewed both the revised itemized statement and the contemporaneous log submitted by Mr. Winn. Unlike the agency, we do not find Mr. Winn's meal charges excessive, for a family of three, at Cherry Point, NC. We consider the meal charges (without tips) to be reasonable, since the agency has not provided evidence, such as figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or the Runzheimer Index, demonstrating that the meal charges were excessive. Alex R. Martinez, 68 Comp. Gen. 550, 551 (1989). It is evident that Mr. Winn arranged his meal expenditures to avoid having to submit receipts. This practice naturally made the agency suspicious, but the practice was not illegal or imprudent. Many of the tips, however, particularly for the breakfasts and lunches, are in the range of sixteen to thirty percent. In the absence of explanation for a higher percentage rate, such as exemplary service by the waiter or waitress, we conclude that a tip rate of fifteen percent of the total bill is appropriate. A tip rate in excess of fifteen percent is not satisfactorily explained by Mr. Winn's practice of tipping to reach a pre-set level of spending per meal. Mr. Winn over-tipped by $95.72 (based on a fifteen percent rate) and is indebted to the Government for that amount. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge