____________________ February 12, 1998 ____________________ GSBCA 14357-TRAV In the Matter of WILLIAM A. ROGERS William A. Rogers, Los Angeles, CA, Claimant. Richard K. Rogers, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Los Angeles, CA, appearing for Department of Justice. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, William A. Rogers, a special agent employed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), seeks reimbursement of per diem for daily meal and incidental expenses for the period when he reported to a long-term detail. Mr. Rogers is, however, covered under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between INS and the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE). The grievance procedures contained in the collective bargaining agreement are the exclusive means for resolving the issue presented in Mr. Rogers's claim. Accordingly, the Board lacks authority to review this claim. Background On November 3, 1995, claimant and nine other special agents stationed at INS's Los Angeles, California district office reported to a long-term detail at INS's Santa Ana, California office. The Santa Ana office is about 35 miles from the Los Angeles district office and approximately 45 miles from claimant's personal residence. Mr. Rogers's detail ended on October 1, 1996. Mr. Rogers asserts in his claim that prior to the detail no information was provided to him or other agents on the detail concerning per diem. Lacking knowledge of its availability, Mr. Rogers and the other agents made no claim for it. It is claimant's understanding that several agents, who ended their details earlier than October 1996, were told upon return to the Los Angeles District Office that per diem was available. These agents submitted claims for per diem and, Mr. Rogers has been told, these claims were approved by the agents' supervisors. Mr. Rogers states that by the time he returned to the Los Angeles office, however, first line supervision had been directed not to sign per diem claims. Mr. Rogers nonetheless submitted his claim for per diem to the agency. He received no response. After waiting a year, he sought review of the matter from the Board. In a report filed in response to this claim, INS states that special agents were recruited for this long-term detail through a memorandum issued by the agency. The memorandum, according to INS, described the nature of the detail and specifically notified the agents that no per diem would be paid. The agents who reported for the detail had volunteered for it. In addition, INS takes the position that the applicable provision of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) does not permit payment of the per diem allowance within the limits of the official station or at or within the vicinity of an employee's place of abode from which the employee commutes regularly to the official station. The FTR permits agencies to define a radius or commuting area that is broader than the limits of the official station within which per diem will not be allowed for travel within one day. 41 CFR 301- 7.5 (1996). The Department of Justice (DOJ) supplement to the FTR provides that an employee assigned to a temporary duty (TDY) station within a 50 mile radius from his or her residence is considered to be in a local travel area and may be reimbursed only the additional out-of-pocket commuting expenses incurred in traveling to the location of the TDY assignment. Thus, INS contends that the special agents are not entitled to per diem for the duration of this detail. Mr. Rogers filed a response to the agency report. His response states that he had not seen the memorandum referred to by the agency. He also explains that he disagrees with the 50- mile radius rule cited by the agency. Instead, he relies on the definition of official duty station set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the INS and the AFGE applicable to the National Border Patrol Council. Both Mr. Rogers and the INS representative agree that this agreement covers claimant and the special agents assigned to the detail in issue. Article 26 of the collective bargaining agreement covers business travel of employees. One of the provisions in this article defines "official duty station" in terms of the corporate limits of the city or town where the employee is stationed. Mr. Rogers argues that since Los Angeles and Santa Ana are in different counties they cannot both be part of the same official duty station and he is, therefore, entitled to per diem. Discussion The collective bargaining agreement covering claimant and other special agents contains a provision setting forth a negotiated grievance procedure for employees who have a complaint "concerning conditions of employment . . . , or alleged contractual violations" by INS. Unless specifically excluded, such a complaint may concern the adverse impact of "(1) the effect of interpretation or claim of breach of [the collective bargaining agreement] or other written agreement between the parties; or (2) any claimed violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation affecting conditions of employment." The enumerated exclusions do not include the issue raised by claimant. The agreement also specifically provides that the negotiated grievance procedure shall be the exclusive procedure available to employees in the unit for resolving grievances which come within its coverage. The Board has recognized that if a claim concerning expenses of travel or relocation is susceptible to resolution under the terms of grievance and arbitration procedures provided for in a collective bargaining agreement, we lack the authority to settle the claim using our administrative procedures unless the agreement explicitly and unambiguously excludes the disputed matter from its procedures. Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA 29,091; accord Claudia J. Fleming-Howlett, GSBCA 14236-RELO (Jan. 28, 1998); Larry D. Morrill, GSBCA 13925- TRAV (Jan. 27, 1998); True Carter, et al., GSBCA 14131-TRAV (Jan. 14, 1998); Brian S. Brame, GSBCA 14333-TRAV (Jan. 8, 1998); Henry E. Carroll, Jr., GSBCA 14206-TRAV (Dec. 29, 1997); William A. Watkins, GSBCA 13970-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,222; see also Dunklebarger v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 96-3200 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 1997). This dispute is not excluded from the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement constitute the exclusive administrative mechanism available for resolving Mr. Rogers's claim of entitlement to per diem. The Board lacks the authority to consider this claim. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. _____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge