Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                            _______________
                            August 11, 1998
                            _______________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14567-TRAV
 
                    In the Matter of MICHAEL B. CAIN
 
        Michael B. Cain, Bremerton, WA, Claimant.
 
        Judy Hughes,  Travel Policy, Defense Finance  and Accounting
   Service, Columbus Center, Columbus,  OH, appearing for Department
   of Defense.
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
             For his temporary  duty travel,  the claimant  was
        authorized to be reimbursed his actual expenses, not to
        exceed 150% of the total per diem rate applicable.  The
        claimant, who seeks greater reimbursement, has shown no
        entitlement under various  theories.  Lodgings  are not
        to be reimbursed  at actual expenses without  regard to
        the  maximum  allowable  rate.   The  claimant  was not
        authorized  to  receive  reimbursement   based  upon  a
        combination of actual expenses and per diem allowances.
        Further, regulations  now current (with a  higher daily
        rate  and,  for  actual  expenses,  a  greater  maximum
        percentage  of per diem allowances), but not applicable
        for the period of  travel, do not alter the  claimant's
        entitlement to relief under his travel authorization.
 
        From March 22  through April 2, 1996,  the claimant, Michael
   B. Cain, a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, was on
   a temporary duty (TDY) assignment; he spent some days in Okinawa,
   Japan.    His  travel  authorization,  as  amended  on March  20,
   authorized reimbursement of actual expenses not to exceed 150% of
   the total per diem allowance.  For days  in Okinawa, the claimant
   incurred  expenses   for  lodging  and  food  in  excess  of  the
   calculated rate of reimbursement.  The claimant seeks to  recover
   his actual lodging costs plus full meals  and incidental expenses
   (M&IE) allowed at the current per diem allowance rate (as opposed
   to the rate in effect at the time of the TDY).  Alternatively, he
   seeks reimbursement for  the incidental expenses portion  of M&IE
   at  the current  per  diem  allowance rate,  in  addition to  all
   claimed expenses.  Further, the claimant  questions the rate used
   for Okinawa.
 
        Statute  specifies  that  an  employee,  when  traveling  on
   official business  away from  the employee's  designated post  of
   duty, is entitled to a per diem allowance or to reimbursement for
   the actual and  necessary expenses of official travel,  each at a
   rate or an amount not to exceed that established by the President
   or his designee for travel outside the continental United States,
   or  to a  combination of  such payments.   5  U.S.C.   5702(a)(1)
   (1994).   The President delegated  to the Secretary of  State the
   authority to establish  these rates.  Exec. Order  No. 12,561, 51
   Fed. Reg. 24,299 (1986).
 
        The agency concluded that, under the applicable regulations,
   no specific entry  for Japan, other than "other,"  would apply to
   the TDY location at issue.  It utilized the per diem rate of $156
   for  its calculation of  actual expense  entitlement, multiplying
   that  figure by 150%.  The claimant  has demonstrated no error in
   the  agency's determination.  That  the regulations later added a
   specific entry for Okinawa Prefecture, with an effective date for
   application of July 1, 1997, does not benefit the claimant.   The
   Secretary of State  did not provide  for a retroactive  effective
   date  to encompass the time of the claimant's travel.  The agency
   and this Board each lack the authority simply to alter either the
   applicability date  of the  regulations  or the  maximum rate  of
   reimbursement.   Similarly unavailing is the subsequent change in
   the  regulations which  increased the  maximum reimbursement  for
   actual expenses from 150% to 300% of the per diem allowance.  The
   claimant has suggested no basis in statute or regulation to apply
   other than the rates in effect at the time the TDY assignment was
   performed.
 
        The  claimant attempts to  recover his actual  lodging costs
   without  the limitations established  by the Secretary  of State,
   and  the full M&IE  rate allowance.   Alternatively, the claimant
   seeks  reimbursement  for  incidental  expenses  based  upon  the
   incidental portion of the per diem allowance rate.  Such requests
   are  contrary  to  the travel  authorization  which  provides for
   reimbursement of actual expenses not to exceed the total per diem
   allowance   rate.    The   authorization  did  not   provide  for
   reimbursement based upon a combination of actual expenses and per
   diem allowances.
 
        The claimant suggests  that he is entitled  to reimbursement
   utilizing the  estimated cost  for per diem  found in  his travel
   authorization.   While  that  figure is  used  to  calculate  the
   advance a  traveler may  receive, it does  not alter  entitlement
   under the  regulations, which specify particular  allowance rates
   and maximums for reimbursement.
        The claimant has not demonstrated entitlement to  additional
   relief.
 
 
                                 ____________________________
                                 JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                 Board Judge