Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
                           _________________
 
                             March 4, 1999
                           _________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14766-TRAV
 
 
                  In the Matter of KENNETH G. JOHNSON
 
 
        Kenneth G. Johnson, Brandon, SD, Claimant.
 
        Peter  D.  Gvozdas,   Chief,  Northern  Regional  Accounting
   Branch,  Rural Utilities  Service, Washington, DC,  appearing for
   Department of Agriculture.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant asks that we reconsider our decision of January 26,
   1999, in which  we denied his  claim for $108.10,  the cost of  a
   round trip  he made from  his permanent duty station  in Brandon,
   South Dakota, to  Wahpeton, North Dakota, on  September 12, 1998.
   The purpose  of the  trip was to  retrieve personal  effects left
   behind in a motel room while  on temporary duty (TDY) at Wahpeton
   in July of the same year.  We denied the claim  because we agreed
   with claimant's agency that the travel was unauthorized.  
 
        Mr. Johnson maintains  that certain background facts  in the
   Board's decision are  misstated.  He now states  that he realized
   the items  in question  had been  left behind  in the  motel long
   before  he undertook a  round trip of 460  miles on September 12,
   1998, to retrieve  them.  Mr. Johnson's concern  at this juncture
   with the details of efforts to retrieve the property is puzzling.
   In his  initial correspondence  with us, he  explained that  such
   details were not  included with the appeal because  they were not
   relevant  to   the  issue.     Nevertheless,   in  a   subsequent
   transmission, he explained "I traveled to Wahpeton on the morning
   of the  12th after discovering that very morning that my property
   was still at the motel."  It was this sentence which prompted the
   Board to  state, by  way of  background, that  on the morning  of
   Saturday, September 12, Mr.  Johnson discovered he had  left some
   personal items behind at the motel at Wahpeton.  
 
        Mr.  Johnson's primary  objection to  the  Board's decision,
   however, is that we failed to recognize that his trip to Wahpeton
   and  back on September  12 was itself  part of a  site visit and,
   therefore,   within   the   parameters   of   his   limited  open
   authorization to make  site visits.  He contends  that neither he
   nor  the agency  believes that  traveling to  the motel  to bring
   personal property home from  a site visit is  not covered by  the
   limited travel authorization.  He explains:
    
 
        A site visit  is a series of trips  including last, but
        not least,  bringing baggage  home from  the job  site.
        The  site visit is  not completed  until the  travel is
        completed.    The  travel is  not  completed  until the
        employee and baggage return. 
 
        Claimant's argument reduces  to the absurd the  limited open
   authorization  previously  issued  to him  to  make  site visits.
   Obviously  this Board and  Mr. Johnson's agency  would agree that
   such  an  authorization includes  a  stop  at  a motel  to  bring
   personal property  home from a  site visit.  This,  however, does
   not  include a  return  trip  to the  motel  several weeks  after
   returning home  to retrieve  personal property  accidentally left
   behind at the site while previously there on TDY.  
 
        The agency's position  in this  case is  that Mr.  Johnson's
   return trip to Wahpeton was unauthorized.  The agency recognized,
   however,  that the employee  did have authorization  to make site
   visits.   Therefore,  the agency  clearly does  not  consider Mr.
   Johnson's return to be  a site visit or the delayed conclusion of
   his earlier  site  visit.   The  agency's interpretation  of  Mr.
   Johnson's  limited open  authorization to make  site visits  is a
   reasonable   one.     Mr.   Johnson's   interpretation  is   not.
   Consequently, his request for reconsideration is denied.  
 
 
                                      _____________________
                                      EDWIN B. NEILL
                                      Board Judge