Board of Contract Appeals
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
_____________________
June 19, 2001
_____________________
GSBCA 15464-TRAV
In the Matter of THOMAS A. BOOR
Thomas A. Boor, Williamsburg, VA, Claimant.
Ray York, Chief, Travel Systems Division, Defense Finance
And Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for
Department of Defense.
NEILL, Board Judge.
Claimant, Mr. Thomas A. Boor, asks that we review a
determination by his agency that he should not be reimbursed the
additional expense he incurred by purchasing an airline ticket
directly from the airline rather than through the contract
commercial travel office (CTO). We affirm the agency's
determination.
Background
On Thursday, August 17, 2000, Mr. Boor, whose permanent duty
station is Fort Eustis, Virginia, was issued travel orders for a
temporary duty (TDY) assignment at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. On
the following day, Friday, August 18, airline tickets for his TDY
assignment were secured from the local CTO. Prior to departure,
which was scheduled for the following Monday, August 21, claimant
discovered that the folder containing his airline tickets and his
Government contractor-issued travel card had been misplaced.
Unable to find the folder, Mr. Boor canceled his
reservations and reported the misplaced tickets to the CTO. The
office, however, refused to issue replacement tickets at the
Government rate without a Government travel card. Mr. Boor
explained that his travel card was with the lost tickets and
asked if he could use his own personal credit card. This,
however, was also deemed unacceptable by the travel office.
Instead, it was suggested that Mr. Boor secure a commercial rate
ticket from an airline ticket agent.
Before embarking on this course, Mr. Boor sought the
approval of his immediate supervisor. He explained what had
occurred and asked if he should continue with the planned TDY and
purchase a commercial rate ticket directly from the airline. His
supervisor agreed with the plan. Mr. Boor then departed for the
airport and, on that same date, Monday, August 21, purchased a
more expensive full-fare ticket directly from the airline and
left for his TDY assignment in Kansas.
Mr. Boor's misplaced tickets were eventually found and
redeemed. The agency, however, has since refused to reimburse
Mr. Boor for the difference between the commercial rate he
actually paid for his ticket and the Government rate in effect at
the time. He calculates the difference to be $975.50.
Discussion
Mr. Boor's disagreement with his agency regarding his claim
centers on the interpretation of a provision in the Federal
Travel Regulation (FTR). The provision is in question and answer
format and reads as follows:
How is my transportation reimbursement affected if I
make an unauthorized cash purchase of common carrier
transportation?
If you are a new employee or an invitational or
infrequent traveler who is unaware of proper procedures
for purchasing common carrier transportation, your
agency may allow reimbursement for the full cost of the
transportation. In all other instances, your
reimbursement will be limited to the cost of such
transportation using the authorized method of payment.
41 CFR 301-51.102 (2000) (FTR 301-51.102).
Claimant contends that the agency, in denying his claim, has
placed undue emphasis upon the second sentence of the answer
quoted above and failed to give proper weight to the first
sentence. He states that the exception set out in the first
sentence for infrequent travelers who are unaware of proper
procedures for purchasing common carrier transportation applies
to him. He points out that, at the time of his TDY, as is now
obvious, neither he nor his supervisor was aware of all that is
required by these proper procedures.
The agency contends that Mr. Boor most certainly does not
fall into the category of "infrequent traveler." It reports
that, as a matter of record, claimant traveled thirteen times in
2000 and eighteen times in 1999. Mr. Boor argues in reply that
the thrust of the first sentence in the regulation is that an
exception can be made for employees who are unaware of the proper
procedures and that new employees and invitational or infrequent
travelers are simply examples of those who would presumably be
unaware of these procedures.
We disagree with Mr. Boor's interpretation of the first
sentence of the regulation. As it currently reads, the exception
applies only to the specific categories of employees mentioned
and to none others. This is confirmed by the second sentence,
which provides that in "all other" instances, payment is limited
to the costs using the authorized method of payment. It is, of
course, true that Board precedent addresses the issue of whether
a claimant qualifies as an infrequent traveler on a case-by-case
basis. Laurel K. Wheeler, GSBCA 15090-TRAV, 01-1 BCA 31,216;
Susan K. Howard, GSBCA 15105-TRAV, 00-1 BCA 30,878. In this
particular case, however, Mr. Boor has simply not convinced us
that the unfortunate circumstances in his case are so unique that
they justify a conclusion on our part that, notwithstanding his
extensive travel experience, he can still be deemed to be an
infrequent traveler.
Having concluded that the exceptions in FTR 301-51.102 do
not apply to the claimant, we have no choice but to find that the
agency acted in accordance with applicable regulation and was
correct in limiting Mr. Boor's reimbursement to what the cost of
his ticket would have been had he purchased it from the CTO and,
consequently, paid the lower Government rate. See Vivian E.
Nichols, GSBCA 15493-TRAV, 01-1 BCA 31,366; Doris N. Lee, GSBCA
15451-TRAV, 01-1 BCA 31,279; Harold L. Reid, GSBCA 15249-TRAV,
00-2 BCA 31,134; Manuel F. Casiano, GSBCA 15304-TRAV, 00-2 BCA
31,004. The claim is, therefore, denied.
______________________
EDWIN B. NEILL
Board Judge