________________ October 16, 1997 ________________ GSBCA 14073-TRAV In the Matter of ROBERT F. DOREN Robert F. Doren, Homestead, FL, Claimant. C. Bruce Sheaffer, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior. VERGILIO, Board Judge. The claimant, Mr. Robert F. Doren, was on temporary duty travel attending a conference which finished one day earlier than reflected in his travel authorization. After a travel agent under Government contract refused to exchange his ticket so he could depart for home one day earlier, because no seats were available on a Government-contract carrier, the claimant exchanged, with a non- Government-contract carrier, his ticket and paid an additional amount. The claimant received no approval or authorization in advance of his actions or thereafter. The claimant has failed to demonstrate entitlement to reimbursement of the additional expenditure for use of a non-contract carrier. Prior to the temporary duty assignment, the agency authorized the claimant to travel and attend a conference for the period March 17 through 23, 1996. He had a return flight for Saturday, March 23, on a Government-contract carrier. The conference concluded on March 21. Thereafter, the claimant called the commercial travel office (CTO) under contract with the agency to change his return flight from Saturday to Friday. He was informed that no seat was available on the Government-contract carrier. The CTO would not provide a seat on a non-Government-contract carrier. The claimant dealt directly with a non-Government contract carrier, exchanged the return portion of his ticket, and obtained a reservation on the non-Government-contract carrier, at what he says is a Government rate, for $364.82 over the cost of the return portion of his round- trip ticket (that is, $633.82 compared to $269). The claimant undertook such actions without the approval or authorization of a Government official. After the fact, he submitted to the agency a travel voucher with a request for reimbursement of the additional cost incurred ($364.82). An individual with the authority to determine if use of a non-contract carrier was justified and if reimbursement should be approved denied the request. The individual concluded that the additional expenditure of funds was not prudent, in that it was not necessary for the claimant to return to work on Friday, and was accomplished for the benefit of the claimant not for the benefit of the Government. Had he traveled according to his authorization, the claimant would have been entitled to recover for one additional night of lodging ($42), a per diem amount for meals and incidental expenses (a maximum of $26), and an additional day of parking at the airport (apparently $8). Regulation permits the use of non-contract carriers. 41 CFR 301-15.27 (1996). Regulation specifies that use of non-Government- contract carriers for city/airport pairs is justified when seating space is not available, or the scheduled service would require the traveler to incur overnight lodging expense, or the contract- carrier's schedule for the travel involved is inconsistent with the Government's policy of scheduling travel to the maximum extent practicable during normal working hours. 41 CFR 301-15.27(b). In order to receive reimbursement, justification for use of a non-contract carrier must be approved on a travel voucher when such use was not known before travel began. Authority (which may be redelegated) rests with the head of the agency to make the determination. The claimant's travel voucher contains no approval. In the absence of approval, the "traveler shall be responsible for any difference in the cost that may result from the traveler's unauthorized use of noncontract service . . . . The traveler's indebtedness to the Government shall be the difference between the price of the service used and the lowest contract fare applicable to the travel involved." 41 CFR 301-15.28. Thus, without approval, an employee is not entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of the non-contract carrier ticket in excess of the lowest applicable contract fare. The Supervisory Budget Analyst, "with the delegated authority to approve all travel reimbursement vouchers" for the particular office, disallowed the claim with the following explanation: "regulations regarding use of contract air carriers and prudent traveler were not followed." The Deputy Superintendent of the area later concurred with the disallowance and rationale. To the extent that the disallowance rests on the failure to utilize a contract carrier, the determination is not rationally based. Under the regulations, use of a non-contract carrier may be justified when seating is not available, overnight lodging expenses may be avoided, or travel outside of normal working hours can be avoided. However, the existence of any or all possible justifications does not automatically entitle an employee to utilize a non-contract carrier. It is not the employee who determines the validity of the justification and approves the use of a non-contract carrier. The conclusion of those with the delegated authority that the purchase of the non-contract carrier ticket was not prudent is not arbitrary or capricious. A cost comparison reveals that the cost for the change in ticket was an additional $364.82, compared to an additional $76, maximum, which would have been incurred for remaining at the temporary duty site and traveling in accordance with the travel authorization. The above-cited regulation places such discretionary determinations to authorize or not the costs for use of a non-contract carrier with the head of an agency (or delegee). This Board is not entrusted with making such a determination in either the first or the final instance. Rather, the Board reviews a claim, and as in this instance, determines if the claimant has established that the determination of the agency was arbitrary and capricious. Holly Rowe, GSBCA 14037, 97-1 BCA  28,934. The decision to not authorize payment for the expenditure of $364.82 was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, without approval for the expenditure, the claimant is not entitled to additional compensation. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge