____________________________ August 22, 1997 ____________________________ GSBCA 13837-RELO In the Matter of GLENN N. LEVINE, M.D. Glenn N. Levine, M.D., Houston, TX, Claimant. Al LaBombard, Chief, Employee Accounts Division, Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, a newly appointed staff cardiologist for the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, requested reimbursement in the amount of $500 for excess air fare he incurred because he traveled on a regular coach flight instead of on a government contract carrier. For the reasons stated below, the claim is denied. Background On May 15, 1996, the Department of Veterans Affairs authorized claimant to travel from Boston, Massachusetts, to his first duty station in Houston, Texas, as a new appointee with the Department. Claimant's reporting date was July 1, 1996. Claimant was authorized to travel by air and was allowed to transport household goods. The estimated cost for travel was stated to be $500. Claimant, being unfamiliar with the government regulations, purchased his own regular coach class ticket at a cost of $669.50. Claimant explained: The only communication I received from the Houston VA concerning travel to Houston was a travel authority for permanent duty form which noted the estimated cost of airfare at $500. There is NO MENTION anywhere in the document nor was there ANY MENTION by the travel offices in the Houston VA concerning a 'GSA city pair contract airline service.' I therefore booked a regular coach flight at the cost of $669.50. . . . Given that I received no communication whatsoever that something called "GSA city pair contract" existed and that I was supposed to book this, and there would be no way for me to know that something like this existed, I find it incomprehensible that I would be expected to have booked this flight/fair (sic), and that I am not to be reimbursed for money I spent out-of-pocket on travel to assume my duties at the Houston VA. Claimant sought a total of $719.50. Of this, $669.50 was the cost of his commercial airline ticket, and $50 was the cost of transporting his dog. The agency denied the $50 dog transportation fee and deducted $500 since the cost of a Government-issued round- trip air fare would have been $169.40. Discussion The Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) paragraph 301-15.21 requires employees of executive agencies to use Government contract air carriers when traveling on official business. There are three exceptions to mandatory use of government contract carriers: (1) seating space is not available in time to accomplish the purpose of the travel, or the scheduled service would require the traveler to incur overnight lodging expenses; (2) the carrier's schedule for the travel is inconsistent with the Government's policy of scheduling travel to the maximum extent practical during normal working hours; and (3) a cost comparison establishes that (i) a restricted or unrestricted coach fare is lower than the contract fare or other fare offered by the awardee, all other factors being equal or (ii) use of a noncontract coach fare available to the general public would, when added to certain enumerated factors, result in lower costs to the Government than the costs that would accrue if the comparable cost factors were added to the contract fare. 41 CFR 301-15.27(b). Claimant has neither argued nor demonstrated the applicability of any of these exceptions. Further, justification for the use of noncontract carriers must be authorized on individual travel orders or approved on vouchers. 41 CFR 301-15.27(a). As this Board recognized in Abdul Kaliq Raja, GSBCA 14029-TRAV, 97-1 BCA  28,944, "[i]n the absence of specific authorization or approval stated on, or attached to, the travel authorization or travel voucher, a civilian employee is responsible for any difference in the cost that may result from the traveler's unauthorized use of noncontract service. 41 CFR 301-15.28." The fact that claimant's travel voucher estimated his total travel cost to be $500 does not constitute an authorization to use a noncontract carrier. Claimant contends that because he was not aware of Government contract carrier fares and was never advised that they existed, he should not be expected to pay the difference between the regular coach fare and government fare. Although it is unfortunate that claimant's agency failed to apprise him of basic Government travel rules, this does not entitle claimant to reimbursement of regular coach fare. The FTR does contain an exception for the "infrequent traveler," but limits reimbursement to the Government contract carrier fare. This exception states: [T]he infrequent traveler, unaware of the general prohibition against the use of travel agents, who inadvertently purchases transportation with personal funds from a travel agent without the required advance administrative approval, may be granted an exception to the preclusive provisions on a one-time basis and may be paid for the travel costs incurred not to exceed the cost which would have been properly charged the Government if the transportation service had been purchased directly from the carrier. In such cases, the traveler will be advised that recurrence of such use of travel agents will result in denial of reimbursement unless it can be demonstrated that the traveler had no alternative. 41 CFR 301-3.4(b)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). Thus, even if claimant qualified under this exception, he is not entitled to any additional reimbursement because the agency already paid him the contract carrier rate of $169.40. Decision The claim is denied. ______________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge