Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ June 2, 1999 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 14850-TRAV In the Matter of GERRY M. HOPKINS Gerry M. Hopkins, Turnersville, NJ, Claimant. Annie Cheshire Wise, Counsel, Naval Audit Service, Department of the Navy, Falls Church, VA, appearing for Department of the Navy. BORWICK, Board Judge. Gerry M. Hopkins, claimant, a civilian auditor with the Department of the Navy's Naval Audit Service, seeks reimbursement of mileage and expenses for use of a privately-owned vehicle (POV) for temporary duty (TDY) travel. The agency denied her claim because it had not authorized use of the POV for the trips taken. For the reasons below we sustain the decision of the agency. Claimant went on TDY from Cherry Hill, New Jersey to Virginia Beach, Virginia for a two week period starting on September 21, 1998. The agency's travel authorization permitted claimant to travel to Virginia Beach as a passenger in another employee's POV. The agency's designated approving official as stated in the Naval Audit Management Service Handbook, 4001-3a- -the Cherry Hill Site manager--issued the travel authorization. Naval Audit Service policy provides: With few exceptions, whether a rental or POV is authorized, multiple travelers traveling to the same destination are to travel together or at their own expense. This command does not require travelers to use their POVs for TDY. However, if travelers want to use a POV in lieu of a rental car, they must be prepared to travel together in the POV or travel at their own expense. An exception to this policy is in the case of the traveler who elects to drive his POV when air travel is the authorized mode of transportation. Naval Audit Service Policy 4 (Feb. 1997). Exceptions to the ride-sharing policy may be made on a case-by-case basis when there are extenuating circumstances and evidence is presented that it is more economical or efficient to perform TDY travel by other means. Such exceptions may be approved by either the Associate Director or Eastern Area Facilitator. Id. 6(b). Claimant did not travel as a passenger in the other employee's POV as stated in the authorization. Instead, she drove to Virginia Beach in her own car due to the possibility that claimant would have to be called home from her TDY for urgent personal matters. Claimant maintains that her office inconsistently applies the rules. She points to TDY assignments at Cherry Point, North Carolina. For those assignments--of six months' duration- -another approving official had authorized use of individual employees' POVs in order to give the employees flexibility to attend to family problems during the assignments. In that instance, the agency had also made a determination that use of POVs for that duration was less expensive than use of rental cars. Claimant states that during her first week in Virginia Beach, her immediate supervisor had been requested by an employee of the Naval Audit Service Eastern Office to supply cost figures for her mileage and prepare a cost comparison between use of two POVs and one rental vehicle. According to claimant, the supervisor advised her that if it were less costly to the Government to pay for one rental car as opposed to use of two POVs, the mileage for use of her POV for her round trip from Cherry Hill to Virginia Beach would be approved. Based on the information provided by her immediate supervisor, claimant's second level supervisor believed that use of two POVs would be cheaper than use of one rental car. Nevertheless, designated agency officials never ratified claimant's use of the POV for TDY travel between Cherry Hill and Virginia Beach. Later, agency officials compared the cost of use of two POVs as against one rental car for a two-week trip from Cherry Hill to Virginia Beach. According to the agency's estimate, the use of two POVs for the two-week period would have cost the Government $118 more than the cost of one rental car. While in Virginia Beach, claimant's second-level supervisor told claimant that she would be traveling to Japan on October 13, about eleven days after returning from her TDY. The agency's travel office assisted claimant with her passport application. To obtain a passport, claimant needed her birth certificate. Without written authorization, but based on what she thought was implicit authorization from both her immediate and second-level supervisors, claimant used her POV to drive round-trip between Virginia Beach and her residence to obtain the birth certificate. She submitted the paperwork--including her birth certificate-- for her passport to the agency's Personnel Support Detachment (PSD). The PSD requested that the passport agency send the passport to the Customer Service Desk (CSD) of Philadelphia Naval Business Center for the agency's pick-up. The passport was available on October 9. Upon claimant's return from TDY at Virginia Beach, claimant submitted travel vouchers for reimbursement of mileage for use of her POV for her round trip at the beginning and end of her TDY between Cherry Hill and Virginia Beach and for her round trip between those points to retrieve her birth certificate. The agency denied claimant's request because use of her POV was not authorized. Claimant then filed a claim at this Board. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides in its revised question and answer format: Question: "Must I have authorization to travel?" Answer: "Yes, generally you must have written or electronic authorization prior to incurring any travel expense. If it is not practicable or possible to obtain such authorization prior to travel, your agency may approve a specific authorization for reimbursement of travel expenses after travel is completed." 41 CFR 301-2.1 (1998). The FTR also provides that employees may use their POVs when authorized by the agency, 41 CFR 301-10.300, and are entitled to reimbursement costs incurred for use of a POV at the specified rate when use of the POV is determined to be advantageous to the Government. 41 CFR 301-10.303. The Joint Travel Regulations are substantively the same. JTR C2150, C2151. Here, claimant's travel authorization for her TDY between Cherry Hill and Virginia Beach explicitly stated that she was to ride as a passenger in another employee's POV. Claimant's interim trip to Cherry Hill to retrieve her birth certificate was simply not authorized. Under similar circumstances, when employees have used their POVs for official travel without advance or after-the-fact authorization, we have denied reimbursement. Monteze M. Jaggers, GSBCA 13829-TRAV (Nov. 27, 1996), Ronald H. Milligan, GSBCA 13702-TRAV, 97-1 BCA 28,713. Claimant has not persuaded us that the facts of this matter warrant a departure from our previous holdings. Claimant points to the agency's approval of the use of individual employees' POVs at Cherry Point as an allegedly inconsistent application of agency policy. Claimant has not shown that the agency inconsistently applied the ride- sharing policy. First, the policy itself allows for exceptions on a case-by-case basis; that the agency made an exception does not demonstrate inconsistent application of the policy. Second, the agency could legitimately determine that the expense and personal inconvenience associated with a six-month TDY period warranted waiver of the ride-sharing policy while the expense and inconvenience associated with a two-week TDY period did not. Claimant, who has the burden of proof, has not shown this distinction to be invalid. The comments of claimant's supervisor that she would obtain reimbursement for use of her POV do not bind the Government to reimburse claimant for use of the POV since the supervisor was not the designated approving official for travel. As for the interim trip, designated agency officials did not authorize or ratify claimant's use of her POV for that purpose. Claimant has not shown a violation of statute, regulation, or agency policy or abuse of discretion in applying statute, regulation or agency policy. The agency's denial of the claim is sustained. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge