March 11, 1997
                                                 


                             GSBCA 13824-RELO


                    In the Matter of PATRICIA J. TAYLOR


     Patricia J. Taylor, Birmingham, AL, Claimant.

     J. Patrick O Toole, Director, Division of Travel Management,
Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, appearing for Social
Security Administration.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     Ms. Patricia Taylor is an employee of the Social Security
Administration.  She claimed reimbursement for airfare incurred as
the result of a permanent change of station (PCS).  Her claim was
denied in part by the agency.  She appealed within the agency, and
her appeal was denied.  By letter dated July 18, 1996, the agency
requested a decision in this matter from the General Accounting
Office pursuant to 31 U.S.C.  3529.
     In August 1995, Ms. Taylor was authorized a PCS from Redwood
City, California to Birmingham, Alabama.  Her travel orders
authorized common carrier transportation to her new duty station. 
According to Ms. Taylor, no one contacted her to advise as to
travel arrangements, so during her last week in Redwood City, she
contacted the travel office.  Two days before her departure date,
checks for her travel advance arrived by air express, with no
accompanying letter or explanation.  She used a portion of the
funds to purchase a one-way ticket from San Francisco (an airport
nearby Redwood City) to Birmingham.  The ticket cost $671 and was
issued by the California State Automobile Association.  She was not
contacted by anyone from the travel office before leaving San
Francisco.  When she arrived in Birmingham, travel procedures were
explained to her.

     In November 1995, Ms. Taylor submitted a travel voucher
requesting reimbursement for the air fare.  The agency office of
finance reimbursed her $229, the cost of a one-way Government
contract fare, with the balance of $442 deferred pending her
explanation of the circumstances surrounding her failure to use a
GSA-approved travel agency and her failure to obtain a less costly
Government contract fare.  

     She submitted a reclaim voucher with the above explanation in
March 1996 and the agency again denied the claim.  The agency
relied on the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which reads, in
relevant part, as follows:

     Traveler s cost liability when selected method is not
     used.  The traveler shall use the method of
     transportation administratively authorized or approved by
     the agency as most advantageous to the Government. . . .
     Any additional cost resulting from the use of a method of
     transportation other than that specifically authorized,
     approved, or required by regulation, e.g., contract air
     service . . . shall be the traveler s responsibility.

41 CFR 301-2.2(c) (1996) (FTR 301-2.2(c)).  The agency decision
stated further:

     Because the use of contract air fares for official travel
     are required by both FTR[] and the Social Security
     Administration (SSA), we are unable to reimburse you any
     more than $229; the cost for a one-way contract fare
     between San Francisco, California and Birmingham,
     Alabama.  Accordingly, your reclaim of $442 in additional
     airfare expenses is denied.

     We do not question the veracity of Ms. Taylor s explanation of
the circumstances.  It appears that Ms. Taylor received little help
or instruction regarding the mandatory requirement to make travel
arrangements with a Government contract air carrier at the approved
discount fare, and acted as she believed prudent.  Even so, under
the circumstances presented, the Comptroller General has held that
one cannot be relieved of the mandatory requirement of the same
regulation.  In Byron A. Hartley, B-252488 (June 17, 1993), an
applicant for a position with a federal agency purchased his own
airline ticket without realizing he was required to purchase same
at a discount rate from a Government contract carrier.  The
Comptroller General held:

     [Even if] agency officials misinformed or misled [the
     claimant], such action would not change the result.  The
     erroneous advice of government employees may not serve as
     the basis for a claim that otherwise expressly is barred
     by statute or regulation.  OPM v. Richmond, 446 U.S. 414,
     110 L. Ed.2d 387, 110 S. Ct. 2465 (1990); Frederick J.
     Donnelly, B-237607, May 21, 1990. 

     While it is unfortunate that a misunderstanding occurred
     and that [the claimant] incurred some non-reimbursable
     costs as a result, we find no basis to allow his claim.

     In the instant case, even though Ms. Taylor may not have
received sufficient guidance in making her travel arrangements,
this circumstance may not serve as a basis for her claim, which is
otherwise barred by regulation.  The agency properly denied Ms.
Taylor s request for reimbursement of the amount in excess of the
discounted fare.





                                   _________________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge