________________________ September 17, 1998 ________________________ GSBCA 14300-TRAV In the Matter of MARY ANN WILSON Mary Ann Wilson, Laurel, MD, Claimant. Sarah S. Tuck, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Riverdale, MD, appearing for Department of Agriculture. GOODMAN, Board Judge Claimant, Mary Ann Wilson, a former employee of the Department of Agriculture, has requested that the Board reconsider its decision issued in this matter on August 3, 1998. In that decision, the Board reviewed actions of the agency arising from two travel vouchers in relation to two periods of temporary duty (TDY) travel from her permanent duty station, Baltimore, Maryland, to Los Angeles, California. The Board determined that claimant was entitled to reimbursement for various claimed amounts, and was not entitled to other claimed amounts for which claimant now requests reconsideration. The matters presented to us are as follows: Lodging In our previous decision, we found that claimant was not entitled to $768 for lodging fees claimed as the result of failure to provide receipts. With her request for reconsideration, claimant has for the first time submitted to this Board copies of receipts for the period in question. Claimant has the burden of proving the liability of the agency and claimant s right to payment in these proceedings. Board Rule 401(c). Because claimant s and the agency s original submissions were unorganized and difficult to follow, the Board initially requested that claimant and an agency representative meet with the Board to explain their positions. While the agency was amenable to this procedure, the claimant declined, and chose to submit the case on the written record. The Board organized and paginated a compilation of all claimant s documents filed in the case, and created an index containing the paginated record and referencing the agency s documents as well. The paginated record and index were transmitted to the parties, and several times the Board directed inquiries to the parties to be answered in writing. We asked the claimant to submit any additional documents she had in support of her claim. Claimant did submit some additional documents, but she did not supply any additional receipts to support the lodging costs in question. Instead, she maintained that Contrary to the agency claim that needed receipts were not supplied, all required receipts were attached, and she referenced specific pages in the paginated record. Claimant had ample opportunity to submit documentation before the record was closed. Information in the possession of claimant which could have been submitted previously is not sufficient grounds for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Board reaffirms its previous decision on this issue. Based on the record before the Board at the time the case was presented for decision, claimant is not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of lodging for February 19 through March 5, 1992. Allegations of wrongful conduct by the agency Claimant maintains in her request for reconsideration that one of the vouchers (Agency Exhibit 4) was altered AFTER I signed it and that this was done without my consent or knowledge. . . . The figures supplied by the agency in Exhibit 4 are NOT valid nor do they reflect my claim. As we discussed in our previous decision, we understood the agency s writing on the voucher to be line-outs and corrections on the voucher that was processed apparently made by the approving official to indicate the amount of the costs reimbursed. What claimant characterizes as alterations merely indicate the agency s calculation of the amounts which it reimbursed to claimant. We viewed the additional writing on the voucher as the approving official s own arithmetic to support the actual amount reimbursed, and not an attempt to alter claimant s claim. As is clear from the previous decision in this matter, the Board addressed the actual claims submitted by claimant. Claimant s current contention has no impact on the resolution of the case. Per diem and telephone calls Claimant offers additional argument with regard to per diem expenses and phone charges to which the Board found she was not entitled. She alleges that the Board misread her vouchers with regard to her itinerary, presents details of travel which were not offered previously, and offers arguments concerning regulations and their applicability. Our previous decision contained a detailed calculation of the entitlement to the amounts found owing based on the record at the time of decision. We find no error in our previous decision as to the result reached on these two issues. Common carrier expenses Claimant has requested reconsideration of the decision regarding reimbursement of common carrier expenses. Claimant is correct that the Board did not realize that some amounts claimed were for two trips rather than one. Claimant is entitled to the claimed amounts of $111 for the first voucher and $90 for the second voucher. We therefore revise our previous opinion to provide that claimant is entitled to payment of $3977.94 for reimbursable expenses under both vouchers, in addition to the amounts previously reimbursed by the agency under the second voucher. This revised amount reflects the inclusion of $111 and $90 as reimbursement for cab fare for the first and second vouchers rather than $48 and $27 as in the Board s previous decision. _______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge