________________________________ December 18, 1997 ________________________________ GSBCA 14186-TRAV In the Matter of ROBERT H. CHAPPELL Robert H. Chappell, Charleston, SC, Claimant. Dan S. Watson, Finance and Accounting Officer, Corps of Engineers, Charleston District, Charleston, SC, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Robert H. Chappell, a biologist employed by the Corps of Engineers, was on long-term temporary duty (TDY) from Charleston, South Carolina to the Washington, D.C. area for approximately four months. He was authorized to return home, at his option, every thirty days. Claimant arranged for lodgings in the Washington area at a monthly rate. His travel expenses were reimbursed at a rate of fifty-five percent of the combined lodging and subsistence per diems while at the TDY location. On days when he traveled to Charleston from Washington or returned to Washington from Charleston, he received seventy-five percent of the per diem allowance for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE), but was not paid a lodging per diem. Claimant was not paid a TDY per diem for the days when he was at his permanent duty station (PDS) in Charleston. Because he negotiated a monthly rate for lodgings, which covered the periods of home visits, claimant contends he should be paid the lodging per diem for these six days. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that the agency properly denied this claim. Background Mr. Chappell was assigned to temporary duty for a period of four months (120 days) at Fort Belvoir, VA, from his PDS in Charleston. Because of the length of the TDY term, he was authorized to take a trip home to Charleston every thirty days. Mr. Chappell took three such trips. The Charleston District reimbursed him fifty-five percent of the maximum per diem while at the TDY location and seventy-five percent of the meals and incidental expenses per diem rate on the days he returned to his PDS and TDY locations. Claimant contends that when he left his TDY assignment and returned to Charleston to visit his family he should still have been paid his lodging per diem for the six nights he was away from the TDY location. Mr. Chappell reasons that he retained lodging at a favorable monthly rate and was forced to pay for these nights even though he returned home. He also states that employees from other districts were reimbursed the lodging per diem while on authorized trips home. He believes the practice should be consistent throughout the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers responds that Mr. Chappell has been properly, and more than fully, reimbursed already. In accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), Mr. Chappell was paid fifty-five percent of the maximum lodging rate for this area as provided in his travel orders, or $69 per night. The total reimbursement he received for lodging was more than his actual cost for lodging. Thus, the agency points out, under the circumstances the monthly rate obtained by Mr. Chappell was not advantageous to the Government. The JTR does not authorize payment of lodging per diem for periods when the employee is at the PDS. The agency further argues that even if other districts have paid lodging per diem to their employees under these circumstances, the Charleston District should not use this as a justification to "over compensate" this employee. Discussion Ordinarily, when a Government employee undertakes official travel for a temporary duty assignment, the expenses of travel are reimbursed under the lodgings-plus per diem system, which provides that the employee will be reimbursed the actual cost of lodging, up to the prescribed maximum, and a set amount for meals and incidental expenses. 41 CFR 301-7.6 (1996). The FTR further provides, however, that the lodgings-plus system is not mandatory when an extended stay is contemplated; instead, a reduced per diem rate may be authorized. 41 CFR 301-7.12(b). Under the JTR, when a civilian Department of Defense (DOD) employee is scheduled for long-term temporary duty, per diem payments for lodging and meals and incidental expenses are paid at fifty-five percent of the applicable standard maximum amount. JTR C4561.D.1.a. This provision was the basis for claimant's travel orders permitting payment of fifty-five percent of the maximum per diem rate for the TDY location. The other provision of the JTR relied upon by the Corps of Engineers is paragraph C5004.D, which states that when an employee returns home for the weekend while on TDY, per diem is not payable. Although there have been situations where employees have been reimbursed for the cost of long-term lodging while on an extended tour of TDY, even for periods when they returned to the PDS, this methodology has been adopted to avoid the inequity where an employee is being compensated the daily rate for lodging and would otherwise be out-of-pocket for the cost of lodging on the days when per diem was not authorized.[foot #] 1 This approach comports with the employee's entitlement, under 5 U.S.C. 5702(a)(1) (1994), to reimbursement of "the actual and necessary expenses of official travel," not to exceed established maximum per diem amounts. In contrast, in the case before us the claimant has in fact been paid at a rate that exceeds the actual cost of lodging. His principal argument is that he understands that employees in other divisions of the Corps have been paid lodging per diem for nights when they returned home while on similar tours of extended temporary duty. Although we agree that this poses an inequity from the point of view of the traveler, there is no basis for the Board to require this district to adopt this practice. The approach taken by the Charleston District is in compliance with the applicable provisions of the FTR and the JTR. Accordingly, we cannot find that claimant is entitled to recover lodging per diem for the days he returned home while on the extended tour of TDY. ______________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In these cases, the agency has received the benefit of a reduced lodging per diem and the traveler would be out-of-pocket if the lodging per diem were disallowed for the days the traveler returned home. Thus, the traveler is being compensated for actual costs; the daily lodging cost in these cases is recalculated by dividing the monthly rental by the actual number of days the quarters are occupied by the traveler. See Anthony B Queern, B-247084 (Aug. 6, 1992); Jesus Soto, Jr., ___ _________________ _______________ 62 Comp. Gen. 63 (1982).