___________________ December 5, 1997 ___________________ GSBCA 13985-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS J. DRESLER Thomas J. Dresler, Grand Canyon, AZ, Claimant. C. Bruce Sheaffer, National Park Service, Department of Interior, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior. NEILL, Board Judge. The United States Department of the Interior (DOI) has asked for guidance on whether an employee of the agency on extended temporary duty (TDY) may be reimbursed any lodging expenses while residing in a personal residence purchased for use during his TDY assignment. We conclude that payment may be made. Background Claimant, Mr. Thomas J. Dresler, is a project supervisor assigned to DOI s Denver Service Center. He was approved for extended TDY travel to the Grand Canyon National Park with a starting date of January 10, 1995. The purpose of Mr. Dresler s extended TDY assignment to the park was to serve as project supervisor for the construction of much needed Government housing in the area. On arrival at the park, Mr. Dresler was provided with a Government-owned two-bedroom mobile home for use as quarters. Because his quarters were supplied by the Government, he was given a reduced flat per diem allowance which was to apply only to meals and incidental expenses. Mr. Dresler was joined at his temporary assignment by his wife and child. Approximately one year later, his wife gave birth to a second child. Shortly thereafter, Mr. and Mrs. Dresler concluded that the mobile home originally provided was inadequate for their purposes. Since no other Government owned quarters were available to Denver Service Center employees and no non-Government housing was available in the immediate area, Mr. Dresler decided to purchase a home in the area of Flagstaff, Arizona, and commute from there to his TDY work station at the park. Officials at the Denver Service Center agreed with Mr. Dresler s decision to relocate and amended his travel authorization to increase his flat per diem rate to cover lodging as well as meals and incidental expenses. The new approved rate, however, was still a reduced rate. The agency explains that its Denver Service Center customarily gives its employees on extended TDY no more than 55% of the daily rate for the area. The DOI s Accounting Operations Center, which is responsible for certification of travel reimbursements, subsequently questioned the approval of the increased per diem rate for Mr. Dresler. The matter was referred to the General Accounting Office for an opinion and, thereafter, in view of recent statutory changes, to this Board.[foot #] 1 Discussion It is well established that a Government employee on extended TDY can be reimbursed lodging costs even when the employee becomes the owner of the house or apartment in which he or she is residing during the TDY assignment. There is, however, one critical condition which must be satisfied in such situations. The residence must be purchased because of the TDY assignment and not merely for the sake of maintaining a second residence for some other reason. Donald C. Smaltz, GSBCA 14328- TRAV (Oct. 23, 1997); James H. Quiggle, B-192435 (June 7, 1979); Robert E. Larrabee, 57 Comp. Gen. 147 (1977); cf. Sanford O. Silver, 56 Comp. Gen. 223 (1977) (lodging costs not reimbursable because residence at TDY station was maintained solely for family reasons and not for reasons of travel). In its request for guidance, the agency indicates that it is very much aware of this line of cases but admits to being in a ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 GAO's administrative responsibility for claims settlement functions as previously set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3702 has been transferred to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-53, 211(a), 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995). The Director of OMB delegated certain of these functions to the Administrator of the General Services Administration who, in turn, redelegated to this Board the settlement functions pertaining to travel and relocation expense claims by federal civilian employees. The authority to settle these claims has subsequently been vested by statute in the Administrator. General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316, 202(n), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- quandary regarding its application. The agency letter states: The circumstances in this case suggest that the residence was purchased because of the TDY travel, except the employee decided to purchase the residence because of his family size and for no other reason. It may well be that the decision of claimant in this case to change residences was prompted by nothing more than a perceived need for larger quarters. This, however, is a matter which we believe can and should normally be left to the discretion of the employee. A change in residence during TDY, however, does nothing to alter the employee s continuing and fundamental need for a residence while on TDY assignment. In this case, we are satisfied that Mr. Dresler bought his residence in Flagstaff not only to accommodate his growing family, but also because of his continuing need for a residence while on TDY assignment in the Grand Canyon area. Arguably, if the quarters provided to Mr. Dresler were intended solely for him and were not available for use by others, there would be reason not to reimburse him for lodging costs incurred elsewhere. Mr. Dresler, however, assures us, and the agency does not dispute, that the trailer did not go unoccupied. In view of the extreme shortage of housing, Mr. Dresler's trailer was immediately occupied by other Denver Service Center staff associated with the construction project. The agency is troubled by the Comptroller General s decision in the Silver case cited above. The case is readily distinguished from this one. In Silver, the claimant, after establishing residence at his new permanent work station, was sent on TDY back to his old permanent work station. His family was still residing in the area at a home he had previously purchased. While there on TDY, he stayed with them. His claim for lodging at his home was understandably rejected. The house in which Mr. Silver stayed while on TDY assignment clearly had been bought and was maintained for reasons other than his TDY. The costs of maintaining the home were incurred regardless of whether he was there on TDY or not. As such, they were not considered costs associated with his travel and, therefore, were not reimbursable. In Mr. Dresler s case, we see no reason why his per diem cannot be increased to include some reimbursement for lodging as well as for meals and incidental expenses. Any costs claimed should, of course, be prorated to reflect monthly interest, property tax and utility costs actually attributable to the period of his stay at the residence during his period of TDY. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge