__________________ September 8, 1997 __________________ GSBCA 13879-TRAV In the Matter of DEBORAH E. WHITE Deborah E. White, Colorado Spring, CO, Claimant. Charles Stockwell, Directorate of Support Services, Finance and Accounting Liaison Office, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant in this case, Ms. Deborah E. White, is a civilian employee of the United States Air Force. She contests the recoupment of $299.75 which the Air Force seeks to recover from reimbursements already provided to her for travel expenses. On return from a temporary duty assignment (TDY), Ms. White submitted a claim for travel expenses. Included in this was a claim for lodging. Although not reimbursed for the entire cost of her lodging, she was paid the maximum allowable under regulations. On subsequent review of her American Express credit card statements, the Air Force learned that a credit had been extended to her later by the hotel in which she had lodged while on TDY. The agency contends that this credit is, in effect, a reduction of Ms. White's actual lodging costs which, after adjustment for the credit, are less than what she was given by way of reimbursement. Hence, the demand for recoupment. Ms. White disagrees. She explains that the credit was intended to compensate her personally for inconveniences suffered during the course of her stay at the hotel. We deny Ms. White's claim to retain the credit for her own use. Background In June 1986, Ms. White was on TDY in Newport Beach, California. Her accommodations at a local hotel were less than satisfactory. The room had a slow plumbing leak that resulted in a damp odor and growth of airborne mold spores. Not until her last day did she discover the source of the problem. On departing the hotel, she registered a strong complaint concerning the condition of the room, but nonetheless paid the total charge of $808.50 for her lodging. This amount was charged to her American Express credit card. On return to her permanent duty station, Ms. White promptly submitted a claim for travel expenses. Included in this claim was the total of $808.50 charged to her credit card for lodging. She was not reimbursed for this entire amount. Rather, her reimbursement for actual lodging expenses was limited to the maximum allowable under applicable regulation. Given this limitation, she received a total of $679 for lodging. Following her return from Newport Beach, a manager at the hotel where she had been a guest attempted to reach her. A message left by him indicated that the hotel wished to apologize for the condition of the room and was prepared to offer her some compensation for her inconvenience. Ms. White reports that her efforts to respond to this message were exceedingly frustrating. In returning the call, she was passed from one employee to another and was kept on hold for extended periods of time. Eventually she reached the manager who had initially called her. In the conversation which followed, the manager offered to compensate Ms. White by reducing the cost of her room by half, namely, $404.25. After some further discussion, he agreed to increase this amount by $25 to compensate Ms. White for the cost and inconvenience she encountered in returning his call. It was agreed, therefore, that a total of $429.25 would be provided to Ms. White through a credit on her American Express card. In a brief letter sent to Ms. White shortly thereafter, the hotel confirmed the credit and expressly stated that it was not a "prize, gift, or an award." The Air Force eventually learned of the credit and demanded that Ms. White refund an amount paid to her for lodging which was in excess of the actual cost of the lodging. Ms. White objected to the demand on the ground that the actual cost of her lodging remained $808.50 as stated in her original claim. She explained that the credit issued to her American Express card represented nothing more than compensation for the costs and inconveniences she personally experienced as a result of the hotel room's condition. The Air Force has rejected Ms. White's explanation and demanded that she refund $299.75 from the amount already paid to her for lodging during her TDY. This figure is based on a revised actual cost of lodging of $379.25, i.e., the original claim of $808.50 less the subsequent credit of $429.25. Since Ms. White originally was reimbursed a total of $679 for lodging, the Air Force now seeks $299.75, namely, the difference between the paid reimbursement of $679 and the $379.25 which is the revised actual cost of lodging. Given Ms. White's continued disagreement with the Air Force's demand, this matter has been forwarded to us by the Air Force for final resolution. Discussion A fundamental principle of federal personnel law is that an employee must account for any gift, gratuity, or benefit received from private sources incident to performance of official duty. The reason for this is that this gift, gratuity, or benefit is viewed as having been received on behalf of the Government. This principle is reflected in the Department of Defense's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), to which Ms. White is subject as a civilian employee of the Air Force. The JTR states: An employee is obligated to account for any gift, gratuity, or benefit received from private sources when performing official travel. This includes promotional materials given to the employee by airlines, rental car companies, and motels . . . . JTR C1200. The same provision can be found in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which is of even broader application -- to civilian employees throughout the Federal Government. See 41 CFR 301-1.103 (1996). In discussing these regulations, the General Accounting Office (GAO) accorded a broad meaning to the term "promotional material." The action in question need only involve value "given to enhance a company's image or customer service." It need not be in connection with any specific promotion. Dwight Davis, B-257704 (Nov. 14, 1994). We find this to be a sensible interpretation of the term and follow it here. The credit extended to Ms. White by the hotel in this case can be viewed as a promotional benefit. The mere fact that the credit was not meant as a "prize, gift, or award" does not necessarily strip it of the promotional value which generally characterizes gestures of this type. Furthermore, in attempting to determine the precise purpose of this action, we must focus first and foremost on what was actually done as opposed to what was allegedly intended. What the manager did, in fact, was to reduce the cost of the lodging by canceling a portion of the original credit card charge through issuance of a credit to the same card. Ms. White contends that the manager's use of the lodging charge as a starting point for determining what compensation would be appropriate was simply an arbitrary choice on his part. We think not. In the absence of other evidence in the record, we conclude that it was his intent to accommodate, as a good will gesture, an obviously dissatisfied guest by discounting the cost of her stay. Having determined that the credit extended was, in fact, a benefit received incident to the performance of official duty, we consider it entirely reasonable that the Air Force should insist that the actual cost of lodging be adjusted to reflect the reduction. The credit in question is the property of the Government and, therefore, has been rightfully applied to offset amounts which might otherwise be due for the cost of Ms. White's lodging. Her claim to retain for her personal use the benefit of this credit is, therefore, denied. The recoupment sought from her by the Air Force must be paid. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge