Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ March 12, 1999 ________________________________ GSBCA 14842-TRAV In the Matter of DAVID WHEELER David Wheeler, Eliot, ME, Claimant. J. A. Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant seeks reimbursement for mileage costs incurred in driving his privately owned vehicle (POV) to obtain meals during a temporary duty (TDY) assignment. The agency properly denied reimbursement, finding that suitable meals were available at or near the TDY base. Background Claimant is an employee of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. He was issued temporary duty orders to travel to the Groton Naval Submarine Base, Groton, Connecticut, from February 25-March 9, 1998. Claimant's travel orders permitted reimbursement for mileage between the place of lodging and the job site not to exceed thirty-five miles per day. However, claimant's travel orders did not authorize reimbursement for mileage between the lodging or duty site and dining facilities. During his TDY period, claimant claimed mileage for 288 miles for travel in his POV to obtain meals, an average of twenty-two miles a day. This does not include mileage between claimant's lodging and work site. Claimant contends that there was nowhere on the base where acceptable meals could be obtained other than two fast food establishments, one of which was not open for breakfast and the other of which did not open until 6:00 a.m., which was often too late for his schedule, and which offered a limited selection for a thirteen-day TDY tour.[foot #] 1 Claimant also noted that the Officers' Mess was "clear across base." The order-issuing officials determined that suitable meals were available at the base. The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard had a policy authorizing POV mileage entitlements at temporary duty stations which permitted reimbursement for POV mileage for distances traveled between the place of lodging and the job site; this policy did not authorize the type of entitlement claimant is seeking for mileage between the work site or lodging and dining facilities. The agency denied claimant's claim based upon its policy, reasoning that payment of a POV mileage allowance for travel to meals specified in Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) C2402 is generally permissible only in remote areas without ready access to dining facilities, and there are numerous dining facilities available in this TDY area. Discussion The governing regulation, Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 301-2.3(b), in effect at the time of claimant's travel, provided: Where the nature and location of the work at a temporary duty station are such that suitable meals cannot be obtained there, the expense of daily travel required to obtain meals at the nearest available place may be approved as necessary transportation not incidental to subsistence. A statement of the necessity for such daily travel shall accompany the travel voucher. 41 CFR 301-2.3(b) (1997). The Comptroller General has recognized that this provision limits the authority to reimburse employees for the expense of daily travel to obtain meals to situations where the nature and location of the work at the temporary duty station are such that suitable meals cannot be obtained there. Russell J. MacAfee, B-243393, et al. (Apr. 10, 1992). In Mary V. Empry, B-218984 (Dec. 18, 1985), the Comptroller General denied reimbursement of transportation costs to obtain meals where the claimant stated that only fast food restaurants, inadequate for an evening meal, were in the general area of her lodgings. In denying reimbursement, the Comptroller General stated: This regulation [the predecessor to the FTR provision quoted above] does not make any exception for restaurant service or variety, nor does it recognize ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant did not specify how many days his schedule prevented him from patronizing the restaurant which opened at 6:00 a.m. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- individual diet requirements. If an employee is not satisfied with the restaurants at or near her temporary duty station or lodgings she may, at her own expense, go elsewhere. Special meals or desires as to service or variety are personal and are not incident to official business, and the employee may not be reimbursed for such travel expenses." (Citations omitted.) The applicable provision in the JTR, which implement and supplement the FTR, JTR C2402, also limits reimbursement to situations where suitable meals cannot be obtained at the duty site. This regulation provides, in pertinent part: C2402 TRAVEL IN AND AROUND TDY STATION A. Points of Travel. Reimbursement for transportation expenses in the TDY area may be authorized/approved for travel between: 1. lodging and duty site; 2. duty sites; or 3. lodging or duty site and dining facility. B. Conditions of Entitlement. When an employee is on TDY and suitable meals or lodging can't be obtained at the duty site, reimbursement is authorized for travel as indicated below, if the employee furnishes an acceptable statement that Government transportation wasn't available or, if available, wasn't suitable for the travel involved. Employee may be reimbursed for: . . . . 2. one round trip daily between the duty site or lodging and dining facility. The employee's commanding officer or order-issuing official may authorize/approve a second and third trip when justified; Here, it was within the order-issuing official's authority to determine whether suitable meals were available at the TDY location. Claimant's assertion that the fast food establishments were not to his liking or frequently not open early enough and that the Officers Mess was "clear across base" are insufficient to establish that the authorizing official's determination was clearly erroneous or that suitable dining facilities were not available at or near the duty station. As the Comptroller General has recognized, where restaurants offer meals adequate to the needs of most employees, travel expenses may not be allowed for employees who, for reasons of personal preference, obtain meals in distant locations. MacAfee; Empry. Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge