______________________________ October 28, 1997 ______________________________ GSBCA 14209-TRAV In the Matter of EARL C. CATES, JR. Earl C. Cates, Jr., Norfolk, VA, Claimant. J. Patrick O Toole, Director, Division of Travel Management, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, appearing for Social Security Administration. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. When an agency authorizes an employee to travel by common air carrier and, as a matter of personal preference, the employee decides to travel by car, the agency can reimburse the employee for no more than the constructive cost of the common air carrier transportation plus the constructive per diem allowance. The constructive cost of common air carrier transportation is limited to a contract carrier fare, if such a fare was provided when the employee traveled. In determining the constructive per diem allowance, an agency may reasonably conclude that an employee would not have flown to a temporary duty location four days before being required to report at that duty station. Background Earl C. Cates, Jr. is an employee of the Social Security Administration (SSA). In mid-December 1996, SSA authorized Mr. Cates to travel from his permanent duty station in Utah to a temporary duty station in Virginia for a six-month assignment. Mr. Cates s travel orders authorized him to travel by air carrier from Utah to Virginia and back to Utah at an estimated cost of $500. Because Mr. Cates wanted to have a car available during his temporary duty assignment, he considered driving to Virginia. He recalled from an SSA training course that he should compare the cost of driving to the cost of air and taxi fares, and that SSA would most likely reimburse him for the amount of the air and taxi fares because it was usually cheaper to fly than to drive. He also recalled from the training course that SSA would not pay for his lodging while he was in route to his destination, but would reimburse him for his lodging after he arrived there. Mr. Cates and a secretary in his office checked with the SSA travel agency to see what the one-way air fare would be for a Government employee traveling from Salt Lake City, Utah to Norfolk, Virginia on January 3, 1997. The travel agency said that the fare would be $554, which was slightly more than the round-trip fare estimated in Mr. Cates s travel orders. Mr. Cates decided to drive from Utah to Virginia, and began traveling on January 3, 1997. Mr. Cates assumed that he would be reimbursed $554, which he believed was the cost of the one-way air fare from Utah to Virginia. Mr. Cates arrived in Norfolk, Virginia on Thursday, January 9, 1997, and checked into a hotel. He reported for work on Monday, January 13, 1997. Mr. Cates asked the SSA to reimburse him for the travel expenses that he incurred on and after January 3, 1997. As Mr. Cates expected, SSA determined that it would have been cheaper if he had flown from Utah to Virginia. SSA reimbursed Mr. Cates $252, which is the amount that SSA would have paid if Mr. Cates had used a contract air carrier to fly from Utah to Virginia. SSA also reimbursed Mr. Cates $130, which is the amount that it would have cost if Mr. Cates had flown and incurred terminal transportation and excess baggage charges. SSA did not reimburse Mr. Cates for his lodging expenses on the night of January 9, 1997, because SSA determined that, if Mr. Cates had flown to Virginia, SSA would not have paid for lodging before January 10, 1997. Mr. Cates asks us to review SSA s decision. In his view, SSA should reimburse him $554, and not $252, because he was told by SSA's travel agency that the one-way air fare between Utah and Virginia was $554. Mr. Cates suggests that perhaps $554 was the lowest air fare available on January 3, 1997, which is the date that he left Utah for Virginia. He also asks to be paid for his lodging on the night of January 9, because he was told in a training course that he would be paid for his lodging when he arrived in Virginia. Mr. Cates explained that he arrived in Norfolk several days before he was to report for work because SSA would not reimburse him for the lodging costs that he incurred while he was driving and he was trying to get to Norfolk as quickly as possible because he understood that, once he arrived in the Norfolk area, SSA would reimburse him for his lodging costs. Discussion An employee who travels to a temporary duty station is supposed to use the method of transportation authorized by the agency as most advantageous to the Government. If an employee chooses to utilize some other means of transportation and, as a result, incurs additional costs, the employee is responsible for those added costs. 41 CFR 301-2.2(c) (1996). When, as a matter of personal preference, an employee uses a privately owned vehicle instead of a common carrier, the most that the employee can be reimbursed is the constructive cost of the common carrier transportation plus the constructive per diem by that method of transportation. When the employee would have traveled by air, the employee s constructive transportation costs cannot exceed the cost of coach-class accommodations on a commercial air carrier. If the travel is between cities for which air carrier service is provided under a contract with the General Services Administration, the constructive cost is limited to the contract fare. Coach-class accommodations are considered to be provided when they are scheduled for flights serving origin and destination points, regardless of whether space would have actually been available if the employee had used common carrier air transportation. If an employee s constructive transportation costs are based upon the use of an air carrier, then the employee s constructive per diem allowance is also based upon the use of an air carrier. 41 CFR 301-4.3. SSA authorized Mr. Cates to use a common air carrier to travel to Virginia. As a matter of personal preference, Mr. Cates decided to drive instead of fly. It would have been less expensive for Mr. Cates to fly than to drive. Based upon the applicable regulations, the total allowable amount that SSA can reimburse Mr. Cates is the constructive cost of his common air carrier transportation plus the constructive per diem allowance by that method of transportation. SSA properly determined to reimburse Mr. Cates $252 for his constructive common air carrier transportation cost, because a one- way contract fare of $252 was provided between Salt Lake City, Utah and Norfolk, Virginia in January 1997. Mr. Cates suggests that perhaps no seats were available for less than $554 on January 3, 1997, but he has not established this as a fact. Even if, as Mr. Cates suggests, there were no seats available at the contract carrier fare, the regulation explains that service is considered to be provided regardless of whether space would have actually been available. SSA is not bound to reimburse Mr. Cates $554 based upon the erroneous information provided to him by the SSA travel agency concerning the air fare from Utah to Virginia. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947); Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (1996). Mr. Cates s constructive per diem allowance is to be determined as if he had used an air carrier to travel from Utah to Virginia. For purposes of computing his per diem allowance, Mr. Cates would have begun to travel when he would have left his home or office in Utah. 41 CFR 301-7.5(d). If Mr. Cates required lodging on the day he began to travel, he would have been reimbursed for the cost of that lodging. 41 CFR 301-7.8(a). The regulations do not say that an employee should begin to travel any set number of days before reporting at a temporary duty station. The regulations do say, however, that an employee traveling on official business is expected to exercise the same care in incurring expenses as would a prudent person traveling on personal business and spending personal funds. If an employee incurs added expenses for personal preference or convenience, the employee is responsible for those expenses. 41 CFR 301-7.2(a). In SSA s opinion, it would not have been reasonable for Mr. Cates to have flown to Virginia on Thursday, January 9, 1997, when he did not have to report for work until Monday, January 13, 1997. Mr. Cates does not say that there was any reason he would have needed to fly to Virginia four days before he was due to report for work. Instead, he says that he arrived in Norfolk on January 9 because SSA was not reimbursing him for the lodging expenses that he incurred during his trip from Utah to Virginia, and he wanted to arrive in the Norfolk area as quickly as possible so that he could be reimbursed for his lodging expenses. Mr. Cates s arrival in Virginia on January 9 can be reasonably viewed as being for his own preference or convenience. We cannot say that SSA s determination to begin paying Mr. Cates a per diem allowance on January 10 is arbitrary or capricious. If Mr. Cates received erroneous advice during a training course, that does not obligate SSA to reimburse him for his lodging on January 9. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947); Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (1996). The claim is denied. _______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge