__________________________ April 18, 1997 __________________________ GSBCA 13825-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS S. WARD Thomas S. Ward, Urbana, IL, Claimant. Clarence Austin, Regional Administrative Officer, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, Madison, WI, appearing for Department of Agriculture. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Thomas S. Ward, an agroforester employed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), seeks reimbursement of the cost of a rental car used for local transportation during occupancy of temporary quarters under a permanent change of duty station from Anchorage, Alaska to Champaign, Illinois. USDA has denied Mr. Ward's claim on the ground that reimbursement of such costs is not authorized under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). In forwarding the claim on behalf of Mr. Ward, USDA has inquired whether any authority might exist which would allow for payment. Mr. Ward was transferred from Anchorage to Champaign effective January 21, 1996. His household goods were transported under the actual expense method. Mr. Ward determined that it would not be practicable to drive his automobile from Alaska to Illinois. Thus, a Government bill of lading (GBL) was also issued to cover the transportation and storage in transit of Mr. Ward's privately owned vehicle. Mr. Ward and his family occupied temporary quarters in Champaign, Illinois from January 18, 1996 until February 16, 1996. During that period, Mr. Ward rented a car to provide local transportation for himself and his family. On February 16, the Wards moved to permanent quarters and their household goods and automobile were delivered on that date. Mr. Ward submitted a voucher for reimbursement of $720, the cost of the rental car for the period in which he occupied temporary quarters with his family. He points out that because his personal vehicle was shipped from Alaska and did not arrive until February 16, the rental car was necessary for his family to obtain meals, attend to laundry, and the like. Use of a government vehicle could have provided transportation for him, but not his family members. Reimbursement of relocation expenses of transferred employees is authorized by 5 U.S.C.  5724a (1994). This provision permits the payment of subsistence expenses of the employee and his or her immediate family while occupying temporary quarters. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which implements this statutory provision, however, specifically states that "[e]xpenses of local transportation incurred for any purpose during occupancy of temporary quarters shall not be allowed." 41 CFR 302-5.4(a) (1996). This provision has been held by the Comptroller General to bar payment of rental car expenses under circumstances similar to those in this case. John G. Shirley, B-234861 (July 11, 1989). In this case, the employee was transferred from South Carolina to Hawaii. His privately owned automobile was shipped to Hawaii at government expense. While awaiting the arrival of his car at the new duty station in Hawaii, Mr. Shirley rented a car. Even though his relocation authorization permitted use of a rental vehicle, the claim was disallowed on the basis of the plain language of the FTR. Accord Kenneth A. Cucullu, B-236570 (Apr. 13, 1990) (payment of erroneously authorized rental car expenses not permitted by FTR, but repayment of travel advance waived because of employee's good faith reliance on travel orders). In this case, the relocation authorization did not provide for the use of a rental car during the period when the Wards' car was in transit. Even had it done so, at most the use of a rental car could be allowed only for official government business, Joseph P. Crowley, B-186115 (Feb. 4, 1977), not for the personal needs of family members. Accordingly, there is no authority under the FTR to permit reimbursement of the cost of the rental car. __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge