______________

                              August 15, 1997
                              ______________

                                     
                             GSBCA 13712-RELO


                      In the Matter of MICHAEL D. FOX


     Michael D. Fox, Yuma, AZ, Claimant.

     M.Sgt. Clarence Hammond, Finance and Accounting Policy
Implementation, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, 
Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Mr. Michael D. Fox, a civilian employee of the
Department of Defense (DOD), has submitted several vouchers seeking
reimbursement for costs incurred in conjunction with a change in
permanent duty station.  The defense accounting office at Mr. Fox s
new work station has refused to pay some of these vouchers which
seek temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE).  The agency
suspects that the claims do not represent actual costs incurred. 
We agree with this conclusion and approve payment only of those
lodging expenses which the agency is reasonably certain were
actually incurred. 

                                Background

     On March 9, 1994, claimant was issued permanent change of
station orders transferring him from Jefferson Proving Grounds in
Indiana to Yuma Proving Grounds in Arizona.  His reporting day was
to be on or about April 8, 1994.  A TQSE allowance was originally
authorized for sixty days.  This was later increased to 120 days. 
  
     Claimant, his spouse, and their two children departed from
Madison, Indiana, on April 3, 1994.  On April 9, they arrived at
Yuma, Arizona.  Thereafter, Mr. Fox submitted a series of claims. 

     Mr. Fox s first voucher, dated April 25, 1994, covered travel
from Madison to Yuma from April 3 to 9.  A second voucher, dated
May 3, 1994, covered TQSE from March 30 to April 2 at Madison and
from April 9 to May 2 at Yuma.  A third voucher, dated June 1,
1994, covered TQSE for the month of May.  A fourth voucher, dated
June 29, sought TQSE for the month of June.     

     By letter dated August 25, 1994, the accounting office at Yuma
advised Mr. Fox of the action taken on his four vouchers.  Apart
from a claim for auto repair, the claims set out in the first
voucher were found to be acceptable.  The accounting officer
allowed a total of $1,252.70.  

     On the second voucher, the accounting office concluded that
Mr. Fox was entitled to $1,579.34 for TQSE while still at Madison. 
The second voucher, however, also included a claim for TQSE at Yuma
for the period of April 9 to May 2.  This was denied.  The entries
on the sheet for itemization of expenses for each meal of each day
of that period were highly unusual.  They were all for the same
amount, namely, $24.50.  In addition, Mr. Fox claimed $10 per day
during this period of April 9 to May 2 for use of coin operated
laundry machines.  In its letter to Mr. Fox, the accounting office
pointed out that the laundry claims were considered too high on a
daily basis for the area.  Because of suspected improprieties in
the meals and laundry claim, the entire TQSE claim for this period
of April 9 to May 2 was denied.

     The accounting office rejected the claims for TQSE in vouchers
three and four in their entirety for the same reason that the TQSE
in the second voucher for the period of April 9 to May 2 was
rejected.  In its letter of August 25 to Mr. Fox, the accounting
office advised him that a reclaim could be filed for the items
disallowed but that if any impropriety was suspected in the
reclaim, the matter would have to be submitted to the Comptroller
General for review.  

     On December 29, 1994, Mr. Fox submitted three reclaims and one
new claim.  The three reclaims covered the period of April 9 to
June 30, 1994.  The new claim covered TQSE for July 1 to 31, 1994. 
Once again, the amount sought for each meal for each day was said
to be $24.50.  The claim for coin operated laundry was also
unusually high, approximately $180 per month.  The agency explains
that in the Yuma area the normal charge is $1 per washer load and
25 cents per fifteen minutes of drying time.  

     For lodging, claimant sought $40 per day for the period of
April 9 to July 31.  In the absence of adequate supporting
documentation for lodging claims, the accounting office contacted
the claimant's landlord directly.  Using documentation provided by
the landlord, the office was eventually able to develop a well
documented statement of actual expenses for rent and utilities.  A
detailed memorandum in the record concludes that the allowable
actual costs for lodging should total $2,936.34.  In developing
this figure, the accounting office took into account the fact that
the daily claim of $40 for lodging was determined to be overstated
by approximately $7 and that claimant, although seeking TQSE
through July 31, nevertheless signed a lease for permanent quarters
on July 13 and had his household goods delivered to the quarters 
on July 15.

     By letter dated June 26, 1995, Mr. Fox was advised by the base
accounting office that his claim for July 1994 and his reclaims for
the period of April 9 to June 30 were denied.  He was offered the
opportunity to appeal this decision to the General Accounting
Office (GAO) if he wished.  He accepted the offer.  The matter was
thereafter referred to GAO in accordance with his request. 

                                Discussion

     Although well aware of the nature of the agency's concern with
the amounts he is claiming for meals, Mr. Fox, in his own written
comments, has offered little to show that the $24.50 claimed for
each meal represents actual expenses.  He admits to having been
furnished written guidance provided to civilian employees of DOD
for permanent change of station travel.  The record contains copies
of some of the pertinent pages of this printed guidance. 
Statements contained in these pages make it abundantly clear that
reimbursement for subsistence costs incurred during relocation is
for actual expenses.  This is, of course, in keeping with an
applicable provision of the JTR.  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. 

     In his written comments, claimant suggests that his
fundamental problem is that he failed to retain receipts for his
meals.  He complains that the printed guidance provided to him was
less than adequate.  Nevertheless, he quotes an instruction in that
material which expressly states: 

     A statement is required showing the cost of each meal for
     each day, by date and the location where and by whom
     meals were taken.  

     It is precisely this itemized statement and not the lack of
receipts which poses the greatest problem for Mr. Fox.  The entries
he has made on the statements provided with his vouchers are
totally lacking in credibility and no comments offered by him make
them less so.       

     We have required reimbursement of meal expenses where the
claimant did not provide receipts but submitted credible
contemporaneous documentation.  Credible itemization statements
would have done much in this regard to strengthen Mr. Fox's claims. 
Indeed, the need for them was clearly stated in the printed
instructions provided to him.  Nevertheless, what he ultimately
provided was wholly inadequate owing to its lack of credibility. 
In the absence of credible supporting documentation, we have found
the agency is not obligated to pay a claimant any amount for meal
expenses, particularly when claimant could not establish that the
expenses were either actually or reasonably incurred.  Michael L.
Morgan, GSBCA 13646-RELO, 97-2 BCA  29,018; Luther R. Dixon, GSBCA
13694-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,947.  We, therefore, find the agency's
refusal to pay Mr. Fox's claim for meals for the period of April 9
to July 31 appropriate under the circumstances.

     As to Mr. Fox's claim for the costs of using coin operated
laundry machines, we agree with the agency that the amount sought
is so unreasonable as to make the assertion that it was actually
spent highly doubtful.  In his written comments, Mr. Fox offers no
explanation for why these alleged costs were so high. 

     Mr. Fox's total claim for lodging for the period in question
clearly cannot be allowed in its entirety.  The agency's
calculation of $2,936.34, however, as the actual cost of lodging is
highly credible and appears to have effectively eliminated from the
original claim any suspected impropriety.  Thanks to the accounting
office's assiduous efforts, it is relatively certain that Mr. Fox
actually paid this amount for lodging.  He should, therefore, be
awarded this amount but no more.  



                                        __________________
                                        EDWIN B. NEILL
                                        Board Judge