Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________________ April 20, 1998 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14498-TRAV In the Matter of ANDRE E. LONG Andre E. Long, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, Claimant. Gerald Moore, Chief, Travel Pay Branch, Financial Services Office, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, appearing for Department of the Air Force. BORWICK, Board Judge. Claimant seeks reimbursement for expenses incurred during authorized overseas travel, which the Department of the Air Force (agency or Air Force) refuses to pay because of withdrawal of funding authorization during claimant's trip. We conclude that the agency must reimburse claimant for the expenses of the trip as authorized by the travel order because the agency did not revoke or withdraw the order. The order created a vested enti- tlement to claimant's reimbursement upon the performance of the travel. Claimant, a civilian employee of the agency, is an assistant professor at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). In December of 1996, claimant was invited to attend the twenty- second International Conference of Improving University Learning and Teaching in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to be held from July 21 through 24, 1997, and to speak on one aspect of teaching alterna- tive dispute resolution (ADR) techniques. On March 25, 1997, the Air Force General Counsel's Office (GCO), Washington, D.C., issued amendment one to an obligation of funds document--Air Force Form 616, Advice Number T9792068--which increased by five thousand dollars the amount of funds available for use by AFIT personnel for ADR training course preparation. The GCO issued this amendment at claimant's request, after he had noticed that the earlier version of the document provided funds for course preparation, but not for temporary duty expenses. On March 26, AFIT, under the signatures of the head of the Department of Government Contract Law (the requesting official) and the Chief, Personnel Programs (the approving official), issued a travel order to claimant authorizing his travel from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to speak at and to attend the conference. Travel was to commence on or around July 20 and last for five days. AFIT authorized claimant to purchase round trip air fare between Wright-Patterson and Rio de Janeiro, per diem in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), course registration fee, and commercial transportation necessary for his trip. On May 14, 1997, AFIT issued an amendment to claimant's authorization increasing the length of his trip by three days and thus pushing back the starting date of claimant's temporary duty to July 17. At about noon on July 17, claimant began his authorized travel by leaving his office and driving to the airport at Columbus, Ohio, where his flight to Rio de Janeiro commenced at about 2:20 p.m. that day. On July 17, at 6:47 p.m., the GCO sent another amendment to the relevant Air Force Form 616 together with a facsimile to AFIT. GCO advised: I have canceled the AF616 and retrieved ALL [temporary duty] funds. [Claimant's] orders are no longer funded by my fund-cite. Please do not let him travel on these orders. Either AFIT or he must pay for the trip or he can not go. I have received no other documentation for AFIT regarding either [sic] AF616. Please call me to confirm your receipt of this fax. The amendment attached decreased by $7,500 the amount of tempo- rary duty funds authorized by AFIT personnel for travel associat- ed with ADR training course preparation. Claimant arrived in Brazil on July 18. From July 21 through July 24 claimaint attended the entire conference and gave a two- hour presentation. During his time on official travel, the Air Force did not withdraw, rescind or alter the travel authoriza- tion, or even advise claimant of the withdrawal of the funding citation for the travel authorization. Claimant took approved leave between from July 28 through August 1 and returned to his duty station on August 4. Claimant was then informed that the AF616 fund citation had been with- drawn. On August 6, 1997, claimant submitted a travel voucher to the agency claiming the following: Air fare $1,196.95 Cash advance cost (unexplained) 13.75 Car rental 314.24 Gasoline 44.76 Hotel 600.00 Visa fees 30.00 Brazil Airport departure fee 18.00 Columbus Airport parking (eight days) 52.32 Conference registration fee 375.00 International driver's license 20.00 Hotel parking 41.90 Total[foot #] 1 $2,706.92 On January 21, 1998, the Chief, Travel Pay Branch, Wright- Patterson Air Force Base, returned the voucher to claimant "without action" and without explanation. Claimant made further inquiry, to which the branch chief replied that "the only expla- nation we can provide you regarding the return of your travel voucher, without action, is that we were acting in accordance with the advice provided by 88ABW/JAC, 88SPG/DPC, and DFAS-DE, Denver." Claimant filed a claim at this Board seeking reimbursement; in response to the claim, the agency states: From a pay and travel standpoint, [claimant's] settle- ment voucher was supported by a valid obligation in the system and was properly signed. However, [claimant's voucher] was returned, without action, due to advice (do not pay) provided by Judge Advocate, Civilian Personnel, and Defense Finance Accounting System Den- ver. The travel order establishes the conditions, in writing, under which official travel and transportation are authorized at Government expense. JTR C3050. The written travel order assists in fund control and meeting the requirements of recording obligations at the time they are incurred. Moreover, the order provides a notice and record of the employee's instructions and entitlements. Lewis J. Kraft, B-198937 (Apr. 15, 1981); Robert Gray, B-203820 (Oct. 19, 1981). Consequently, legal rights and liabilities in regard to travel allowances vest as and when travel is performed under a competent order; generally, the order may not be revoked or modified retroactively so as to increase or decrease the rights and benefits which have become fixed under applicable statutes and regulations. Dana Riser, GSBCA 14017- ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 In his submission to the Board, claimant states he claims $3,027 but does not explain the discrepancy between that figure and the total of the expenses claimed on his travel voucher. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,417; Donald R. Del Balzo, B-253504 (Feb. 14, 1994). There is an exception to the above rule. A travel order may be retroactively modified when it is clearly erroneous, i.e. when the order is erroneous on its face, or when all the facts or circumstances clearly indicate that some provision previously determined and definitely intended had been omitted from the order, or when the order is clearly in conflict with a law, regulation, or agency instruction. Dana Riser; Gail Braten, B- 262009 (Dec. 5, 1995); Aaron Lebowitz, B-233806 (Nov. 16, 1989). Moreover, when all or part of the particular order involves an exercise of discretionary factors by the authorizing official, the order will be presumed correct in the absence of clear evidence of misapplication of those factors. Peter R. Maloney, B-229466 (Dec. 5, 1988). The agency's withdrawal of the fund citation during clai- mant's travel did not suddenly make a valid travel order clearly erroneous. When claimant commenced his travel, the travel order was valid on its face; it was issued by authorized officials, for a legitimate purpose, and contained no incorrect or erroneous terms. The travel order was further supported by a valid obliga- tion. The travel order lacked no missing term that the agency clearly had intended to insert, but had overlooked. Finally, the agency has not demonstrated that withdrawal of the fund citation rendered the travel order in conflict with law, regulation or agency instruction. The advisory facsimile from GCO did not void the travel order; GCO merely stated that AFIT would have to fund the trip itself. AFIT officials did not revoke or revise the order, even after the agency's GCO purported to withdraw the funding. The authorizing officials, therefore, intended to exercise their discretion to ensure that the necessary funds would either be restored to the AFIT account or to see that the obligation would be funded from another account. The agency has not demonstrated that those actions were improper. The agency has not shown that an appropriation was unavailable to fund the obligation. Consequently, the agency's refusal to reimburse claimant for any expenses of his trip amounts to an unwarranted and impermis- sible retroactive modification of claimant's vested rights as conferred by AFIT's travel order. Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for his trip in accordance with the terms of that order. We return this matter to the agency for its determination as to whether the expenses claimed are otherwise allowable and payable. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge