Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ January 26, 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, Mr. Kenneth G. Johnson, is an employee of the Rural Utilities Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. On Saturday, September 12, 1998, he made a round trip in his personally owned vehicle from his permanent duty station (PDS) in Brandon, South Dakota, to Wahpeton, North Dakota. The purpose of the trip was to retrieve personal effects left behind in a motel room while Mr. Johnson was on temporary duty (TDY) at Wahpeton earlier in the year. The agency has denied claimant's request for reimbursement for the costs of making this trip. Mr. Johnson has appealed this denial. For the reasons stated below, we sustain the agency s determination. Background As an auditor for his agency, claimant has occasion to travel a great deal within a specific geographical area. On October 30, 1997, Mr. Johnson was issued a one year travel authorization. Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) in effect at the time, this was known as a "limited open authorization." 41 CFR 301-1.102(a)(2) (1997) (FTR 301-102(a)(2)). With this type of authorization, an employee may travel without further authorization under certain specified conditions.[foot #] 1 In this particular case, travel was authorized for one stated purpose. The purpose code on Mr. Johnson s authorization was "01. The agency confirms that this designated "site visit." FTR 301-1.102(c)(1). In the ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The same type of authorization can also be found in the current version of the FTR. See FTR 300-3.1 (1998). ___ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- remarks section of the travel authorization, it was stated that the employee drove more than 1200 miles per month. It is undisputed that, during the last half of July 1998, claimant lodged at a motel in Wahpeton, North Dakota. Presumably this was in conjunction with a site visit to the area, since a claim for transportation costs associated with this trip was subsequently made and paid pursuant to Mr. Johnson's open travel authorization limited to travel for this purpose. Claimant explains that approximately two months later, on the morning of Saturday, September 12, 1998, he discovered that he had left some personal items behind at the motel at Wahpeton. Since the items were needed for an upcoming trip to Iowa, scheduled for the following Monday, he considered it necessary to make an immediate return trip to Wahpeton to retrieve the items. On that same day, therefore, without consulting with his superiors, he made a round trip from his PDS in Brandon, South Dakota, to Wahpeton, North Dakota, for a total distance of 460 miles. Mr. Johnson's agency advises us that, had he sought authorization to return to Wahpeton, it would have been denied because the Government may not pay travel expenses that are not essential for the transaction of official Government business. Mr. Johnson later submitted a travel voucher seeking reimbursement for TDY travel during the month of September. The voucher cited as authorizing authority the limited open authorization issued to claimant in October 1997. Mr. Johnson included in this voucher a claim for $108.10, the cost of his round trip of September 12 to Wahpeton. Upon learning the purpose of the trip, the agency denied the claim on the ground that costs incurred to retrieve property left behind in a motel by a Government employee, while on official travel, are personal expenses to be borne by the employee himself. Claimant has appealed that determination to this Board. Discussion Under statute, an employee of the Federal Government, such as Mr. Johnson, is entitled to reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses of official travel. 5 U.S.C. 5702 (1994). The same statute, however, notes that this entitlement is subject to regulations which the Administrator of General Services is authorized by law to issue. The FTR issued by the Administrator and in effect when Mr. Johnson received his limited open travel authorization in October 1997 expressly stated that, except as otherwise provided by law, all travel should be either authorized or approved by the head of the agency or by an official to whom such authority has been delegated. FTR 301-1.101(b) (1997). Under the FTR, therefore, authorization was, and continues to be, a fundamental condition to the reimbursement of any federal employee for the costs of official travel. Id. 300-2.1 (1998). In this case, the agency contends that Mr. Johnson's round trip to Wahpeton was outside the scope of his limited open travel authorization. This authorization was, by its terms, limited to travel for site visits. The written monthly itinerary filed by Mr. Johnson for the month of September, however, made no mention of a site visit to Wahpeton. Claimant objects to the agency's reliance on the monthly itinerary. He contends that the itinerary is nothing more than an informational submission and should not be invoked by the agency as an arbitrary modification of the limited open authorization already given in October of the previous year. The agency is correct. It has not relied on the monthly itinerary as the source of any limitation on Mr. Johnson's authority to travel. The limitation precluding payment is correctly said to be in the limited open authorization itself, which stated that travel was authorized only for site visits. The monthly itinerary only confirmed what was already obvious from the facts of this case. Mr. Johnson's trip to Wahpeton on September 12 was simply not a site visit. His request for reimbursement of the costs of this trip under his limited open authorization was properly rejected. Such a trip was not within the scope of this authorization, and there is no evidence that the trip was or should have been independently authorized for some other purpose by claimant's superiors or by operation of law. In the absence of authorization, claimant is not entitled under statute or regulation to reimbursement of the amount sought. The claim must, therefore, be denied. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge