___________________

                             October 30, 1997
                            ___________________


                             GSBCA 14134-TRAV


                      In the Matter of LOUIS M. BERRA


     Louis M. Berra, Chicago, IL, Claimant.

     William H. Eargle, Jr., Deputy Chief Financial Officer for
Accounting, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington,
DC, appearing for Department of Housing and Urban Development.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Claimant in this case, Mr. Louis M. Berra, is an employee of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  He asks
that we review a decision made by HUD officials to deny per diem
allowance to agency employees who work in Chicago, Illinois and
attended a four-week training session run by DePaul University in
Chicago.  Based on the facts presented to us here, we conclude
that the agency officials have acted properly.  

                                Background

     Claimant was authorized to attend the Community First
Leadership Training Program organized and run for HUD in Chicago
by DePaul University.  The program was attended by HUD employees
working in Chicago as well as by employees working elsewhere. 
Registration for the program included lodging, breakfast and
lunch.  No provision was made, however, for supper.  While
employees from out of town received a per diem allowance which
would cover this meal, local HUD employees were advised that
because their official work station was in Chicago, they were
precluded by regulation from receiving any per diem allowance.  

     In a memorandum dated November 13, 1996, and addressed to
the agency's deputy secretary, Mr. Berra sought a waiver from
this restriction.  In support of the request, he attached a
letter from an official at DePaul University explaining that
participants in the training program are encouraged to stay at
the contract hotel during the entire training session "in order
to take full advantage of the networking, idea exchange, and
informal group discussions that take place during off hours."  

     Mr. Berra's request for a waiver was denied.  The agency's
chief financial officer advised that the restriction is based
upon a provision of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and that
the agency's deputy secretary did not have the authority to waive
it.  
     Mr. Berra, on being advised of the agency's refusal to grant
a waiver, requested that the matter be appealed to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) for review.  In view of legislative
changes transferring claim settlement authority from the GAO to
the General Services Administration, the matter was referred to
this Board.

                                Discussion

     The FTR states:

     A per diem allowance shall not be allowed within the
     limits of the official station . . . or at, or within
     the vicinity of, the place of abode (home) from which
     the employee commutes daily to the official station.  

41 CFR 301-7.5(a) (1996).  Elsewhere in the FTR, "official
station" is defined as follows:  

     Designated post of duty and official station have the
     same meaning.  The limits of the official station will
     be the corporate limits of the city or town in which
     the officer or employee is stationed.  

Id. 301-1.3(c)(4).   

     These provisions of the FTR together embody the well-
established rule that, without specific authority of law, the
Government may not pay per diem, in addition to regular
compensation, to an employee working at his or her official duty
station.  Decisions issued by the GAO have consistently upheld
this rule even in situations where the employee may be working
under unusual conditions.  In cases similar to this, where
Government employees have had occasion to attend government-
sponsored conferences or meetings at or within the limits of
their permanent work station, GAO has denied per diem requests. 
E.g., William Perkette, 71 Comp. Gen. 517 (1992); Nancy Blustein,
68 Comp. Gen. 46 (1988); Karen A. Killian, B-223500 (Mar. 16,
1987).  We agree with these decisions and have ourselves followed
the same rule.  Rodney C. Lowe, GSBCA 13850-RELO, 97-1 BCA 
28,962; see also Gerald A. Sherman, GSBCA 13791-TRAV (Sept. 30,
1997) (per diem denied for employee with home within fourteen
miles of TDY location).  

     In seeking a waiver, claimant contends that the situation
confronting the HUD employees in the Chicago area constitutes an
exception to GAO precedents on this matter.  He cites no specific
authority, however, in support of his claim and we are aware of
no specific authority of law which in this case might override
the prohibition contained in the FTR.  The decision of the agency
denying Mr. Berra's request is, therefore, affirmed.  The claim
is denied. 



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge