Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________ May 15, 1998 ____________ GSBCA 14403-TRAV In the Matter of DARRELL R. RATLIFF Darrell R. Ratliff, Lexington, KY, Claimant. David K. Barnes, Office of Chief Counsel, General Legal Services, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Treasury. VERGILIO, Board Judge. The claimant, who interrupted his return from a temporary duty assignment, is not entitled to compensation for a rest period in excess of twenty-four hours. Failing to demonstrate what portion of a tip relates to official baggage, the claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of the amount sought. The claimant has not demonstrated entitlement to interest. The Board lacks authority to resolve a question regarding entitlement to overtime compensation. The claimant, Darrell R. Ratliff, as an employee of the Internal Revenue Service, seeks $636.36 and interest initially denied by the agency, or payment of "scheduled overtime" with interest. The agency has concluded that the claimant is entitled to $91 but not the remainder. The claimant was on a temporary duty (TDY) assignment away from his permanent duty station. During the TDY period, he was at an airport on November 6, 1996, en route to St. Petersburg, Russia, the temporary duty station where work concluded on Thursday, November 21, 1996. On Friday, November 22, the claimant departed St. Petersburg at approximately 7:30 a.m., and arrived in Frankfurt, Germany, at approximately 10 a.m. (local time). The claimant took annual leave for work days of the following week and returned to his permanent duty station via a flight departing Frankfurt on Sunday, December 1.[foot #] 1 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The claimant has made it difficult for the agency to ascertain the facts underlying the resolution of this matter. In his schedule of expenses and amounts claimed, the claimant stated that on Monday, November 25, 1996, he left Frankfurt at 11:05 a.m. and arrived at his permant duty station. In a memorandum he states that he completed travel on November 25. He states in a letter to the Board that he returned on Monday, December 2. Both of these dates for return appear to be inaccurate and misleading. The claimant does not dispute assertions by the agency that the return flight occurred on Sunday, December 1; the claimant has provided to the Board no (continued...) ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- The claimant submitted a travel voucher covering the temporary duty travel. The agency denied reimbursement of $636.66 of the amount sought. In particular, $10 was identified as baggage tips at an airport, incurred on November 6. The agency also denied reimbursement of $169.29 (Friday, November 22), $235.71 (Saturday, November 23), and $221.36 (Sunday, November 24), relating to the return home. The agency did reimburse the claimant for the amount incurred on Sunday, December 1, as if the return occurred on Monday, November 25. Subsequent to the filing of this matter, the agency has concluded that the claimant is entitled to payment of $91 for Friday, November 22. Baggage handling The claimant's travel authorization approved the transportation of excess baggage with the explanation: "Required for course materials." While fees and tips to baggage carriers are normally not separately reimbursable, because covered by incidental expense allowances, 41 CFR 301-7.1(c)(3)(i) (1996), regulation permits reimbursement of charges for checking official excess baggage, and for related charges or tips at transportation terminals. 41 CFR 301-5.3(d). The agency has disallowed a request to reimburse the claimant $10 said to have been incurred during the TDY assignment. The record contains the claimant's explanation of the $10 expense: "they were informal baggage charges necessary to be paid in order to transport [claimant's] clothing, brief cases, and lecture material necessary for a month stay and class, to Russia." The claimant states that he incurred the costs, in part, for other than official excess baggage. The record fails to demonstrate that the entire amount is reimbursable; the record also fails to establish what portion of the $10 is reimbursable, because there is no detail regarding the number or size of items relating to baggage handling. The claimant bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to an amount. The claimant has not met his burden. The agency is not obligated to reimburse $10 or any portion thereof. Rest period up to 24 hours The agency has concluded that the claimant is entitled to payment for Friday, November 22, and constructively for a return on Monday, November 25. This method provides a rest period of Friday after arriving at the airport at approximately 10:00 a.m. (local time), through midnight, and a remainder of a rest period before the constructive departure. The claimant is entitled to no greater rest period. A greater reimbursement would contravene the twenty-four hour maximum permitted for a rest day. 41 CFR 301-7.11(a). The claimant attempts to fit his situation within a regulation which addresses completion of temporary duty on a Friday preceding a non-holiday weekend. However, the claimant completed his tour of duty assignment on Thursday, not Friday. Although that regulation permits a traveler to return on Monday following the weekend, instead of traveling on Saturday, in such circumstances "subsistence reimbursement will be suspended as of midnight Friday, and resumed at 12:01 a.m. Monday, continuing until the traveler reaches home or post of duty." Internal ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 (...continued) proof (such as a copy of a boarding pass) of the date of his return flight. It is clear, however, that he did not return on November 25. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Revenue Service Manual 541.4. The agency has reimbursed the claimant in accordance with these guidelines, such that the claimant has demonstrated entitlement to no greater relief under his theory of recovery. To find entitlement to a greater recovery would contravene a provision of the regulation, which states that, with exceptions not here applicable, if there is an interruption of travel "resulting in excess travel time because of an employee's personal preference or convenience or through the taking of leave, the per diem allowed shall not exceed that which would have been allowed on uninterrupted travel by a direct or usually traveled route." 41 CFR 301-7.15(c). The claimant seeks reimbursement for a rest period in excess of twenty-four hours. Neither his taking of annual leave nor his prolonging his return here suffices to expand the maximum reimbursable period for travel. Interest The claimant has not demonstrated his entitlement to interest on the amount due him. Jerry Jolly, GSBCA 14158-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,518; Michael A. Dilligan, GSBCA 13644-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,045. Overtime pay The Board lacks a basis to rule on the claimant's assertion that he is entitled to overtime pay. The Board's authority in matters of travel and relocation does not extend beyond the ability to settle claims involving expenses incurred by Federal civilian employees; the "Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall settle claims involving Federal civilian employees' compensation and leave." 31 U.S.C.A. 3702 (West Supp. 1998). ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge