Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 May 18, 1998 GSBCA 14220-TRAV In the Matter of ROBERT D. RAHMES Robert D. Rahmes, Silver Spring, MD, Claimant. George B. Baily, Jr., Director, Financial Management Services Center, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Labor. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Robert D. Rahmes, a hearing examiner with the Branch of Hearings and Review, Division of Federal Employees' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor (DOL), was sent from Washington, D.C., to Hawaii to conduct hearings on three days in April 1997. The agency refused to reimburse Mr. Rahmes for two items on his travel voucher, and the employee asked us to review these determinations. In response to this claim, the agency created a "constructive cost voucher" in which it reduced reimbursement for a third item; the employee challenged this action, as well. With one small exception, we find that the agency acted in accordance with requirements of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). 1. While in Hawaii, Mr. Rahmes spent each night in a hotel in Honolulu. He asked to be reimbursed for lodging and meals and incidental expenses at the rates provided in the FTR for the island of Oahu, where Honolulu is located. DOL reimbursed him for these expenses at the rates provided for the island of Hawaii instead. Even before the agency received our notice of docketing of this claim, it recognized and corrected this mistake and paid the employee the appropriate sums. Thus, this matter is no longer in dispute and does not need to be resolved by us. 2. On his way to and from Hawaii, Mr. Rahmes stopped in San Francisco and spent a night there. DOL made reimbursement in accordance with the "constructive voucher" of its own making, which has no provision for a stopover en route. In taking this action, the agency was acting in accordance with 41 CFR 301-7.11(a) (1997), which provides: When travel is direct between authorized origin and destination points which are separated by several time zones and either the origin or destination point is outside CONUS [the continental United States -- the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia], a rest period not in excess of 24 hours may be authorized or approved when air travel between the two points is by less-than-premium-class accommodations and the scheduled flight time, including stopovers, exceeds 14 hours by a direct or usually traveled route. Air travel between Washington, D.C. and Honolulu, including stopovers, does not exceed 14 hours by a direct or usually traveled route.[foot #] 1 Thus, under the FTR, DOL did not even have discretion to authorize or approve the rest periods Mr. Rahmes took in San Francisco. Mr. Rahmes objects that the agency's constructive voucher is unreasonable in having him fly home on Friday, April 4, given that he actually conducted a full day of hearings on that date. The constructive voucher is not objectionable in this regard. Mr. Rahmes performed official business in Hawaii on three days during this trip. He flew west on Monday and Tuesday, March 31 and April 1, worked on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and then flew back east (following a period of annual leave) the following week. The constructive voucher has him going to Honolulu on Monday, working on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and then flying back to Washington on Friday. The agency has not revised the itinerary to have him fly home on the same day he put in a full day's work; it has instead assumed that he arranged his business so that it could all be performed (including travel) within a single week. The FTR requires that "[a]n employee traveling on official business is expected to exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business." 41 CFR 301-1.3(a). DOL's reconstructed trip appears to be efficient and economical, and nothing in the record indicates that following it would have ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 DOL assumed, in its constructive voucher, that Mr. Rahmes took two particular flights each of which took less than 14 hours, including time for stopovers. In support of his argument that most flights between the two cities take more than 14 hours, Mr. Rahmes has provided us with a print-out of a travel agent's list of regularly-scheduled flights during May and June 1997. The list shows 26 flights between Washington (National Airport) and Honolulu; of them, 21 take less than 14 hours and five take more. The list also shows 16 flights between Honolulu and Washington (National Airport); of them, 12 take less than 14 hours and four take more. Mr. Rahmes's list confirms that the flights selected by DOL are of usual length. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- impaired Mr. Rahmes's ability to conduct his work in appropriate fashion. We conclude that a prudent traveler would have organized the trip in this way. DOL has made an error as to the per diem allowance to which Mr. Rahmes is entitled during the time of the flight home, however. Per diem allowances are provided "for each travel day," and are "determined by the travel status and location of the employee at 12:00 midnight." 41 CFR 301-7.1(b)(6), -7.6, -7.8. On the constructive voucher, DOL has Mr. Rahmes leaving Honolulu on Friday afternoon and arriving in Washington on Saturday morning, but the agency allowed a per diem allowance only for Friday. A full allowance for meals and incidental expenses (at the Honolulu rate) should have been paid for Friday, and three- fourths of that allowance should have been paid for Saturday. Id. 301-7.8(c). 3. In traveling east from San Francisco, Mr. Rahmes took a flight which arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Airport, which is a $50 taxicab ride from his home, rather than the airport from which he began his trip, Washington National, which is only a $30 cab ride from his house. In reconstructing the employee's travel voucher, DOL reimbursed him only $30 for the cab ride home, concluding that the Government should not pay extra as a consequence of the employee's decision to arrive at a different airport. In response, Mr. Rahmes maintains, "Use of different airports is done routinely, precisely for reasons such as apply in this case, to obtain a flight with an appropriate schedule." We agree with the claimant that as a general rule, agencies should compensate employees for minor expenses they incur as a result of changes which are made to travel schedules in compliance with the "prudent person rule" stated in 41 CFR 301-1.3(a) and referenced two paragraphs above. Mr. Rahmes has not demonstrated, however, that his change in scheduling which is at issue here (to arrive at the Baltimore airport) was in compliance with the rule. To the extent that any benefit from this decision might be inferred, it pertains to flights from San Francisco, where the employee stopped for his own convenience, rather than Honolulu, from which he would otherwise have flown. Given the large number of flights from Honolulu to Washington (see footnote 1), we do not understand why the employee could not have taken a flight at a convenient time to the airport closer to his house. We consequently do not object to the agency's determination to limit reimbursement for cab fare. Mr. Rahmes has included in his claim additional matters -- complaints that DOL routinely and unreasonably refuses to pay any portion of travel vouchers presented by him and his colleagues when it determines that some portions of the vouchers are incorrect; forces employees to pursue lengthy appeal processes to secure rightful reimbursement; and, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Office of Workers' Compensation Program policy, may not require hearing examiners to travel outside business hours. He has also requested that sanctions and penalties be imposed on DOL and the individuals directly responsible for the practices he considers improper. We take no action on these parts of the claim. This Board settles claims involving expenses incurred by federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation, and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station. 31 U.S.C.A. 3702(a)(3) (West Supp. 1998); Delegation from Administrator of General Services (July 17, 1996). In fulfilling this mandate, we look to the FTR. We have no authority to conduct reviews of agency travel management programs or to impose sanctions against the officials responsible for those programs. Nor do we have cognizance over complaints regarding hours of work by federal employees. Darrell R. Ratliff, GSBCA 14403-TRAV (May 15, 1998). _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge