Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
                           _________________
 
                            August 31, 1999
                           _________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14920-TRAV
 
 
                   In the Matter of DAVID L. BUTCHER
 
 
        David L. Butcher, Bremerton, WA, Claimant.
 
        Judy Hughes, Travel Policy,  Defense Finance and  Accounting
   Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing  for Department
   of Defense. 
 
   HYATT, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant,  David  L.  Butcher, a  civilian  employee  of the
   Department of the Navy, traveled from Washington to California on
   a temporary duty (TDY) assignment.   His TDY ended late on Friday
   afternoon, October  2, 1998.   His travel  orders stated  that he
   would  return to  Washington on  Monday, October  5.   Claimant's
   reimbursement for TDY travel was computed based on a constructive
   return  date of Saturday,  October 3.   Mr. Butcher seeks   to be
   compensated for per diem for Saturday evening, Sunday, and Monday
   and for a  day of rental car  expenses.  The Defense  Finance and
   Accounting Service (DFAS)  has reviewed his claim  and determined
   that,  under  the  applicable  provisions  of  the  Joint  Travel
   Regulations (JTR),  Mr. Butcher is  not entitled  to any  further
   reimbursement.    Claimant has  asked  to  have  the decision  to
   disallow  his claim  reviewed by  the Board.   We  find that  the
   agency has applied  the regulation properly and that  there is no
   basis to reimburse Mr. Butcher for the amounts he seeks.
 
        The  Navy explains  that Mr.  Butcher's  orders reflected  a
   return  date  of October  5, 1998,  at  his request,  based  on a
   misunderstanding of  the regulation that suggests  that employees
   should not  ordinarily  be  required  to travel  on  a  regularly
   scheduled non-workday.   The Navy travel office also  states that
   it usually catches requests of this nature and adjusts the return
   date so that  the employee will not unknowingly  incur costs that
   cannot be reimbursed.  Since the travel office did not catch this
   error,  the  Navy  would  like  the request  to  be  approved  if
   possible.     
 
        DFAS has forwarded the claim  to the Board, with a statement
   that in  its view,  JTR C1058-B.3 applies  to this  situation and
   precludes  reimbursement  of  the  claimed  per  diem  and  other
   amounts.   Under this  provision, when an  employee delays return
   from a Friday to a Monday to  avoid traveling on the weekend upon
   completion  of TDY on Friday,  payment of per  diem is limited to
   that which would  have been payable if the employee had begun the
   return travel  following the  completion  of work  on Friday  and
   continued to the return destination without delay.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        JTR C1058-B.3 recognizes  that travel should be  planned, if
   possible, to take place during regular duty hours and states that
   when TDY  ends late in  the day, the  employee may return  to the
   official  duty station  the next  day.   Example  1 in  C1058-B.4
   addresses the  situation where  an  employee completes  TDY on  a
   Friday  afternoon.   The employee's  travel may be  delayed until
   Saturday in  that case, and  the employee would receive  full per
   diem including lodging for Friday and seventy-five percent of the
   meals and  incidental expenses per  diem rate for Saturday.   The
   regulation  expressly  states  that  "[a]ny  additional  days  of
   delayed travel  are at the employee's  expense."    This rule has
   previously been applied in substantially similar circumstances by
   this Board in Mark Chapman,  GSBCA 13684-TRAV, 97-2 BCA   28,960.
   As in Chapman, the proper  measure of reimbursement is arrived at
   by   reimbursing  the  traveler  for  a  constructive  return  on
   Saturday, disallowing  reimbursement for Saturday  night, Sunday,
   and Monday.  
 
        Although it  is unfortunate  that Mr.  Butcher misunderstood
   the  regulation, and  that the  travel office  did not  catch the
   error  on his travel  orders, this does  not provide a  basis for
   recovery.  See, e.g., Earl  C. Cates, Jr., GSBCA 14209-TRAV, 98-1
   BCA    29,392  (1997). There  is  no authority  to reimburse  Mr.
   Butcher for the additional amounts of  per diem  that he seeks.  
   ____________________________
 
                                           CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                           Board Judge