Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________________________ October 14, 1999 ______________________________________ GSBCA 14568-TRAV In the Matter of CHARLES M. FERGUSON Charles M. Ferguson, Valdosta, GA, Claimant. Brig. Gen. David S. Sibley, Assistant Vice Commander, and Philip D. Donohoe, Director of General Law, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, GA, appearing for Department of the Air Force. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant seeks reconsideration of the Board's decision of February 19, 1999, denying his request for reimbursement of $296.78 for the cost of a rental car and a portion of a commercial airline ticket incurred in conjunction with a temporary duty assignment to a Senior Leaders' Conference (SLC).[foot #] 1 In its decision the Board denied claimant's request for reimbursement for a rental car on the grounds that the use of the rental car was not required for official business or advantageous to the Government because Government-furnished transportation was available for all attendees during the SLC. The Board denied reimbursement of claimant's return trip via commercial carrier on the ground that such expense was not essential to the transaction of official business, pointing out that a military aircraft was available which left within one hour of claimant's commercial flight. In support of his request for reconsideration, claimant submitted "new evidence" to show that he did not know of the ban on rental cars at the SLC and more complete evidence concerning the military orders system as well as additional evidence on his work and successes. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant does not seek reconsideration of that portion of the decision dismissing claimant's four other claims for lack of jurisdiction. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Specifically, claimant contends that he did not attend any staff meeting at which information regarding conference transportation was made available. Claimant states that he was on temporary assignment and unable to attend those staff meetings and was the only senior officer in his small division with no deputy to attend in his place. He also stated that the general who signed his orders, which were later determined to be erroneous, was at those briefings and knew of the prohibition. We have reviewed the additional information submitted in support of claimant's request for reconsideration and conclude that the new evidence does not warrant reconsideration. The determinative factor regarding the allowance for the rental car is not whether claimant knew or did not know that the use of a rental car was prohibited at the SLC. Rather, the determinative factor by regulation, and as set forth in our original decision, is whether a rental car was required for official business and was authorized or approved only when it was determined that other means of transportation were not advantageous to the Government. 41 CFR 302-2.2(d) (1996), Joint Travel Regulation C2001-A. Thus, even if we accept as true claimant's new evidence, this does not alter the legal basis for our determination that he is not entitled to reimbursement for the rental car. With regard to the use of the commercial air carrier to return to Georgia, claimant agrees that flying by military air was the least costly way of returning, but maintains that by taking the additional time to secure "Safety Culture training" at no cost he potentially saved the agency far more money than the cost of the ticket and, therefore, his action was reasonable and prudent. The Board reviewed the evidence submitted in support of claimant's request for reconsideration on this ground as well. Claimant's contentions about the benefits of his securing "Safety Culture training" does not alter the conclusion that it was not essential for official business for claimant to return to Georgia at extra expense on a commercial airline. Finally, claimant contends that travel orders which are legally obtained and acted upon should not be wantonly disregarded. The Board considered the fact that travel orders authorizing the rental car and commercial air travel were signed by an acting approving official -- a general who was not claimant's first or second level supervisor; who did not independently review the orders; and who approved them based solely upon claimant's seniority, grade level, and rank. Based upon the legal authorities cited in its original decision, the Board concluded that the expenses were not properly authorized in the first instance and that the Government is not obligated to reimburse claimant for them. The request for reconsideration is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge