________________ December 9, 1997 ________________ GSBCA 14144-TRAV In the Matter of ILENE B. KRAMER Ilene B. Kramer, San Antonio, TX, Claimant. Willie King, Director, Financial Management Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, appearing for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. VERGILIO, Board Judge. While on temporary duty travel, the claimant made a brief long distance telephone call to the office of her husband to inform him that she would return home that evening, instead of the following day, as had been scheduled. The claimant sought reimbursement of $3.67 as the charge for her "call home" on that day of her travel. The agency denied the claim, because the claimant's travel authorization permitted reimbursement for one long distance telephone call daily to her residence, not elsewhere. The agency properly denied the claim as presented. However, the claimant also sought payment under the agency's official policy guidance which expressly permits the agency to authorize reimbursement for a call made to advise a family member of a change in schedule. The agency incorrectly concluded that the policy applies only to calls made over a Government telephone system. Given the policy and the circumstances of this matter, it would be arbitrary and unreasonable to conclude that this claimant should be denied reimbursement. The claimant is to be reimbursed $3.67. The claimant, Ms. Ilene B. Kramer, was on temporary duty, away from her permanent duty station (in San Antonio, Texas). Her travel authorization specifies a departure date of February 19, 1997, and a return date of February 21, 1997. The "remarks" section of the authorization states: "employee entitled to one ld [long distance] call daily to residence." The claimant concluded the temporary duty assignment on February 20, and did not remain overnight for the scheduled departure on the afternoon of February 21 with a scheduled arrival at 5:45 PM. Rather, she departed for home on the evening of February 20, with an arrival at the San Antonio airport at approximately 10:20 PM. Before departing on February 20, from her hotel she called her husband at his office. She was billed and she paid $3.67 for a two minute call. The claimant requested reimbursement of $3.67 for the call under her travel authorization as a "call home." She requested reimbursement for no other telephone call that day. The agency denied reimbursement because the call was not made to her residence, as dictated on her travel authorization. The agency correctly determined that the call was not made to her residence such that the claimant was not entitled to reimbursement under the statement on her travel authorization. However, the claimant also references the agency's Order 350.002, effective February 10, 1997, as a basis supporting reimbursement of the telephone call charges. The order addresses "use of Government telephone systems, including calls over commercial systems which will be paid for by the Government." Order 350.002(b). The agency incorrectly concluded that the policy applies only to calls made over a Government telephone system; the denial misconstrues the order. The order specifies, as "official policy," the criteria for authorizing calls which will be paid for by the Government. Of the illustrative examples of types of calls that may be authorized, one is for calls when an employee is required to make a change in work schedule and wishes to advise her family of the change. Another is for calls by an employee traveling on Government business who is delayed due to official business or transportation delay. Order 350.002(c). The day-early departure constitutes a change in work schedule, thereby falling under the first-cited example. The day-early departure is not a delay, but is a type of change akin to that described in the second-cited illustrative example. The lack of a reference on the travel authorization to the agency's order and policy does not preclude the claimant from recovering for the telephone call which was fully consistent with the official policy espoused therein.[foot #] 1 The agency has put forward no reasonable basis to deny reimbursement under these circumstances. A denial of reimbursement would be arbitrary given the policy and facts of this claim. The Board concludes that the agency is to reimburse the claimant $3.67. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The Board views the agency's enunciation of its official policy as satisfying the statutory (effective at the time of the travel) prerequisite to payment of this claim. 31 U.S.C. 1348(b) (1994). The requirement has been eliminated for travel performed on or after March 22, 1997 (shortly after the travel here at issue). Pub. L. No. 104-201, 1721, 1725(a), 110 Stat. 2758, 2760 (1996); 61 Fed. Reg. 67,951 (1996).