Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                                              

                         October 1, 1998
                                              


                         GSBCA 14486-TRAV


                In the Matter of ANDREW R. MILLER


     Andrew R. Miller, Washington, DC, Claimant.

     Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus
Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Andrew R. Miller, a Department of the Navy employee, claimed entitlement to
reimbursement of the costs of telephone calls he made to his wife while he was on temporary
duty (TDY) away from his permanent duty station during March 1997.  In initially ruling on
this claim, we explained that the pertinent regulation, the Department of Defense's (DoD's)
Joint Ethics Regulation, DOD 5500.7-R,   2.301 (Mar. 25, 1996), authorizes the use of
commercial communications systems "for official use and authorized purposes only."  It
defines "official use" to include "communications that the DoD Component determines are
necessary in the interest of the Federal Government."  Id.   2.301.a(1).

     We noted that in Appendix O, the DoD's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) amplify  the
definition of "official use" by providing that an authorizing official "may consider certain
phone calls to the traveler's home or family while on the trip as official if the [authorizing
official] considers the calls to be in the Government's interest.  If such calls are considered
in the Government's interest, the [authorizing official] establishes the reimbursement ceiling
for the calls."  JTR app. O,   T4040-A.4.b.  Consistent with this provision, we held that if the
official who authorized Mr. Miller's trip determines that the calls were in the Government's
interest, the calls will by definition have been for "official use," so the agency should pay for
their cost, up to the reimbursement ceiling established by the authorizing official.

     DoD properly reminds us that Appendix O to the JTR governs only a "Test of
Simplified Travel Entitlements TDY for civilian employees assigned to [certain specified]
DOD Components," JTR C1000A.7 (Dec. 1, 1996), and informs us that Mr. Miller's activity
was not one of the specified components.  The agency asks us whether, in light of this
information, our determination should remain as originally stated.

     The answer is in the affirmative, with a small modification.  Although the provisions
of Appendix O are not binding as to whether the claimant's telephone calls were for "official
use" or not, pursuant to DoD's Joint Ethics Regulation, Mr. Miller's component must still
determine whether the calls were "necessary in the interest of the Federal Government."  As
Appendix O indicates, some calls to a DoD traveler's family may be considered "official." 
Other agencies have similar regulations, authorizing reimbursement for the cost of calls home
by employees on temporary duty status.  See Mary Ann Wilson, GSBCA 14300-TRAV (Aug.
3, 1998) (Department of Agriculture); Andrew R. Miller, GSBCA 14486-TRAV, slip op. at
2 n.2 (July 28, 1998) (General Services Administration); Carolyn K. Stiles, GSBCA
14443-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   29,798 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).  There is
nothing in the JTR inconsistent with a DoD agency's making the same kind of determination
that Appendix O specifies.  While the JTR do state, as DoD observes, that DoD will pay for
only official phone calls by employees on temporary duty, and not personal calls by those
individuals, JTR C4706, C4707 (as in effect on the dates of claimant's travel), those
regulations do not explain whether calls home by traveling employees should be denominated
"official" or "personal."  In requiring that DoD employees on temporary duty "exercise the
same care in incurring expenses . . . that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on
personal business" and making those employees "responsible for excess costs and any
additional expenses incurred for personal preference or convenience," JTR C1058, the JTR
allow the agency to set reasonable limits on amounts of reimbursement.  

     Thus, although Appendix O does not apply to this claim, other regulations require
essentially the same result.  The only difference between this appendix and other, applicable
rules is that under the other regulations, the determination as to whether the claimant's calls
home are official or personal is to be made by the component which employed the individual,
rather than the official who authorized the trip.  The head of the component is consequently
free to designate who will be responsible for making this judgment regarding Mr. Miller's
claim.





                              _________________________
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                              Board Judge