Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 July 20, 1999 GSBCA 14890-TRAV In the Matter of LORNA J. LaROE-BARBER Lorna J. LaRoe-Barber, Anchorage, AK, Claimant. Ray E. York, Deputy Director for Systems and Procedures, Finance Directorate, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Lorna J. LaRoe-Barber, is a civilian employee of the Department of the Army. She requests review of the agency s decision to deny her reimbursement for the purchase of an airline ticket from a commercial travel office (CTO) for official temporary duty (TDY) travel. Claimant states that she has been a sub-program manager for the last seven years, and she has been taught over and over again the importance of saving travel dollars whenever possible. Upon receiving travel orders for TDY travel, she called the Government travel agency and was quoted a price of more than $800 for a round trip ticket from Anchorage, Alaska, to Dallas, Texas. She had recently made similar reservations for her daughter for less than $500 round trip, and she asked the Government travel agent for the same fare. The travel agent could not give her that fare because it was required to issue tickets at the Government rate. Since the travel orders stated that she was authorized reimbursement for the purchase of a commercial airline ticket, claimant went to a commercial travel agency and bought the ticket at the lower rate. She states that the only reason she did not purchase the ticket from the Government travel agency is that it could not give her the cheaper fare. She was trying to save the Government money, and in order to do so she had no alternative but to buy the ticket from another agency since the Government travel agency could not meet the price. A financial manager at the agency recommended that claimant be reimbursed regardless of the rules and regulations, since her main objective was to save the government money. However, the agency official responsible for reimbursement denied the request and states in response to the claim: Subparagraph C2207-A, the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) in effect at the time . . . disallowed reimbursement unless it could be demonstrated that traveler had no other alternative. [The claim] clearly shows she could have procured the ticket from a CTO under Government contract, but chose not to to save the Government money. . . . [G]iven her duty position and prior dealings with her servicing Scheduled Airline Ticket Office (SATO) under Government contract, it appears she was well aware of the ticket policy and procedures. As a result, a one time infrequent traveler exception, had one been requested[,] does not appear appropriate in this case. Costs for airline tickets procured through CTOs under Government contract whenever possible honors contractual agreements with certain airlines such as with city pairs and allows for refunds should the traveler s orders be canceled, delayed, or diverted. This may not be the case if tickets are procured from a CTO not under Government contract or purchased directly from an airline. Further, the Government gets a rebate for purchase of tickets for official travel when tickets are obtained through CTOs under Government contract. The agency properly denied claimant reimbursement. Section C2207 of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) reads, in pertinent part: A. Use of Travel Offices. In arranging official travel, employees are authorized to use the following in accordance with Service Regulations: 1. Commercial travel offices (CTO) under contract to their respective organization; 2. In-house travel offices; 3. General Services Administration (GSA) Travel Management Centers (TMC). Except as indicated in subparagraph B below,[[foot #] 1] when an employee purchases transportation from a CTO not under contract to the Government, reimbursement is not authorized unless it can be demonstrated that the employee had no alternative. In the past, we have addressed the application of Section C2207 of the JTR to infrequent travelers who are unaware of the general prohibition against the use of travel agents not under contract with the Government. There is in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) a regulatory exception permitting these individuals to be reimbursed on a one-time basis provided the costs incurred do not exceed the cost which would have been properly chargeable to the Government if the transportation service had been purchased directly from the carrier. Such claimants are to be advised, however, that recurrent use of travel agents not under contract with the Government will result in denial of reimbursement unless it can be demonstrated that the traveler had no alternative. See 41 CFR 301-3.4(b)(2)(ii) (1996). While this exception does not appear in the JTR, this Board has held that it is available as a one-time exception to JTR C2207 because the FTR, as a "legislative rule" issued pursuant to delegation from Congress, takes precedence over the JTR and is to be given special weight. See Andrew A. Rahaman, GSBCA 14365-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,679; Larry Ponce, GSBCA 13681- TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,048; Freddy L. Scarber, GSBCA 14049-TRAV, 97- 1 BCA 28,932; Kathleen M. Watkins, GSBCA 13983-TRAV, 97-1 BCA 28,782; C. Ray Taylor, GSBCA 13688-TRAV, 97-1 BCA 28,783. Given the facts in this case, we do not find Ms. LaRoe- Barber qualifies for the relief provided by this exception in the FTR. Nothing in the record indicates that at the time she purchased her tickets in July 1997, she was an infrequent traveler. Rather, the record indicates that she was a frequent traveler, well aware of the general prohibition against the use of travel agents not under contract with the Government, and that she purposely disregarded the regulatory requirement to purchase her ticket from a CTO under contract with her agency. The fact that her travel orders stated that she was authorized to purchase a commercial airline ticket authorized her to purchase a ticket from a CTO under contract with her agency, and not from any CTO. As the agency s response to this claim emphasizes, the Government contractual arrangements between agencies and CTOs with whom they contract allow for flexibility to revise travel arrangements and provide economic benefits such as rebates to the Government. The regulatory requirement that travelers purchase tickets from these CTOs assures that Government travelers will have such flexibility and provides economic savings to the Government. Claimant s ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Based upon the record before us, the exceptions provided in subparagraph B are not applicable to claimant in this case. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- known violation of this regulatory requirement, while a well- meaning attempt to save the government money, does not entitle her to reimbursement. The agency properly denied reimbursement. _______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge