___________________

                             November 7, 1997
                            ___________________


                             GSBCA 14051-TRAV


                      In the Matter of JUDY VAN ALFEN


     Judy Van Alfen, Las Vegas, NV, Claimant.

     Steve Goldberg, Director, Office of Travel Management &
Relocation, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing
for Department of the Treasury.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     The United States Department of the Treasury has asked us to
review a claim it has made against an employee for refund of the
cost of an airline ticket.  Given the facts of this case, as set
out below, we conclude that the agency's claim is a valid one.  

     In early 1995, Ms. Judy Van Alfen, then an employee of the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), was directed to go on official
travel from Washington, DC to Cincinnati, Ohio.  A ticket was
purchased in the amount of $408.  Upon deciding to combine her
official trip with personal travel, Ms. Van Alfen exchanged the
original ticket for one which included personal travel as well. 
This second ticket was booked as a non-refundable fare.  

     Shortly before her scheduled trip, Ms. Van Alfen's official
travel plans were canceled due to the press of Government
business.  As a result, her ticket went unused.  Following the
cancellation of her official travel, IRS asked Ms. Van Alfen to
refund the $408 spent for her original ticket.  She has declined
to do so.  She contends that her forfeiture of the entire second
ticket, which included the value of the first, was not
attributable to her but to the demands of Government business.

     At Ms. Van Alfen's request, the IRS has forwarded this case
to us for resolution.  Ms. Van Alfen has since retired from the
agency.  


                                Discussion

     Ms. Van Alfen currently finds herself unable to secure a
refund of the $408 originally expended for her ticket to
Cincinnati for one reason alone.  Her exchange of the original
ticket for a non-refundable ticket which would include personal
travel made this impossible.  

     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides: 

     The traveler shall use the method of transportation
     administratively authorized or approved by the agency
     as most advantageous to the Government. . . . Any
     additional cost resulting from use of a method of
     transportation other than that specifically authorized,
     approved, or required by regulation . . . shall be the
     traveler's responsibility.  

41 CFR 301-2.2(c) (1997) (FTR 301-2.2(c)).  

     The Comptroller General has cited this provision in support
of decisions holding a Government employee accountable for value
contributed by the Government towards travel arrangements
modified to accommodate personal travel.  Shirl Thomas, B-256473
(May 23, 1994).  If, for personal convenience, a federal employee
elects to modify arrangements made for official travel, this
regulation makes it abundantly clear that the employee will be
accountable for any resulting additional cost.   We agree with
this approach and apply the regulation to the facts of this case.

     But for Ms. Van Alfen's exchange of tickets, the Government
would have incurred no costs in conjunction with her canceled
travel.  The $408 actually lost, therefore, represents an
additional cost resulting from this employee's decision to modify
the official authorized travel arrangements for personal
convenience.  The IRS has, therefore, quite properly concluded
that in this case the employee is liable to the Government for
this amount.  

     The agency's determination is affirmed.  Ms. Van Alfen
should pay the $408 without further delay.  



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge