Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ November 24 , 1998 ________________________________ GSBCA 14407-TRAV In the Matter of MARLENE DANIELS Marlene Daniels, Elkins, WV, Claimant. Gary E. Larson, Director, Eastern Region, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Nashville, TN, appearing for the United States Department of Agriculture. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. In this case claimant seeks reimbursement for mileage at the rate of 31 cents per mile in conjunction with the use of her privately owned vehicle (POV) during a temporary duty assignment. The agency denied the claim for mileage over and above the rate of 10.5 cents per mile due to the fact that a Government owned vehicle (GOV) was available, and claimant's decision to use her POV was not deemed most advantageous to the Government, but rather was for claimant's personal convenience. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the agency's denial of this claim. Background Claimant, an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), was stationed in Elkins, West Virginia. Claimant was issued a travel authorization on October 14, 1997, for travel to Nashville, Tennessee, from October 19-25 for an administrative workshop. Claimant herself prepared her travel authorization in her capacity as a budget assistant. Claimant's original authorization provided for use of a POV at a mileage rate of 29.5 cents, but the regional office advised claimant that the rate should be 10.5 cents "unless there was no GOV in which case she should claim 31 cents," not the outdated rate of 29.5 cents per mile, up to the cost of an airline ticket. Claimant revised her authorization to state 31 cents per mile for her POV, even though she had been advised that a GOV, a new pickup truck, was available. On October 16, 1997, claimant was advised by USDA's regional office that the proper rate was 10.5 cents per mile. On the same day, claimant's supervisor signed the travel authorization, expecting that "she, as a Budget Assistant, who should be knowledgeable of regulations, would follow administrative guidance from higher authorities and provide him properly executed documents and appropriate administrative advice." Based upon the entire record, we conclude that claimant's supervisor did not himself independently or knowingly determine that claimant's use of a POV was most advantageous to the Government. In signing the travel authorization, claimant's supervisor accepted her representations as to the use of her POV and the 31 cents per mile rate. The agency later determined that this travel authorization was erroneous and the correct mileage rate should have been 10.5 cents per mile. Claimant admits that there was a pickup truck available, but claims that the vehicle "would have created a possible safety hazard by having luggage within the cab of the truck or an imposition by having the luggage in the open bed exposed to the elements." This is claimant's only statement regarding the adequacy of the GOV. The Eastern regional office advised claimant that the mileage rate for her POV would be 10.5 cents if a Government vehicle was available as substantiated by travel specialists at the agency and departmental levels. The agency further stated that it was claimant's personal preference to drive her vehicle and be reimbursed mileage rather than pay a round trip airfare for her spouse, who accompanied her on this trip. Discussion Based upon the entire record, we conclude that a GOV was available for claimant's use on her temporary duty assignment. We further conclude that claimant, for her personal benefit, elected to use her POV and that her travel authorization as approved by her supervisor was erroneous. The agency advised claimant that there was a GOV available and that if she chose to use her POV instead, reimbursement for mileage would be at the rate of 10.5 cents per mile and not 31 cents per mile. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which governs this case, clearly establishes that 10.5 cents per mile is the appropriate rate of reimbursement for claimant. FTR 301-4.4(c) states: Partial reimbursement when Government automobile is available. When an employee . . . who because of the availability of Government-furnished automobiles, would not ordinarily be authorized to use a privately owned conveyance instead of a Government-furnished automobile, nevertheless requests use of a privately owned conveyance, reimbursement may be authorized or approved. The rate of reimbursement shall be 10.5 cents per mile, which is the approximate cost of operating a Government-furnished automobile, fixed cost excluded. 41 CFR 301-4.4(c) (1997); see also James G. Meadows, B-256794 (July 20, 1994) (where GOV is available, employee may use POV, but reimbursement is limited to cost of operating GOV, or 9.5 cents per mile in 1994). Claimant's reliance upon a travel authorization which she prepared and which her supervisor did not independently review does not entitle claimant to a higher reimbursement rate. It is well established that an erroneous travel authorization which authorizes reimbursement above that prescribed by regulation is not controlling. E.g., Alice P. Pfefferkorn, GSBCA 14124-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,313; Colin B. Brown, GSBCA 14060-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,293; Chesley E. Kimbrel, GSBCA 13680-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,043. There is no basis in the record to disturb the agency's determination that the available GOV, a new pickup truck, was adequate for claimant's travel. The agency reasonably determined that claimant's allegations that her luggage would have been exposed to the elements or placed in the front seat do not establish that the GOV was inadequate for her use. Based upon the complete record, claimant has failed to establish that an appropriate Government official properly made the determination that the use of her privately owned conveyance was authorized as advantageous to the Government for the performance of official travel, as required by FTR 301-4.2(a) in order for reimbursement to be made at the rate of 31 cents per mile. Instead, claimant chose to use her POV for personal reasons in lieu of an available GOV. As such, she is limited to reimbursement at the rate of 10.5 cents per mile. Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge