Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                 
 
                              June 8, 1999
                                                 
 
 
                            GSBCA 14942-TRAV
 
 
                    In the Matter of SAM WRIGHT, JR.
 
 
        Sam Wright, Jr., Sterling, VA, Claimant.
 
        Vincent J. Torcivia,  Manager, Travel and Financial  Systems
   Branch,  Accounting Division,  Eastern  Region, Federal  Aviation
   Administration,  Jamaica,   NY,  appearing   for  Department   of
   Transportation.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        In a decision issued  on May 26, 1999, we  addressed a claim
   by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee Sam Wright, Jr.
   Mr. Wright  had demanded payment  of a  fixed amount per  day for
   lodging expenses while on temporary duty.  The agency had refused
   to process  his travel  voucher until  he submitted receipts  for
   lodging costs incurred.  We held that Mr. Wright was not entitled
   to  payment of  any amount  for lodging  unless he  supported his
   demand  with  receipts,  and  that  the  FAA  should  process his
   voucher, paying him for items not  in dispute, even though it has
   properly disallowed the request for payment for lodging.
 
        In this opinion, we noted that the Federal Travel Regulation
   provides   that  expenses  incurred  by  a  federal  employee  on
   temporary duty will  be reimbursed under one of  three methods --
   lodgings-plus per diem, reduced per  diem, or actual expense.  We
   concluded  that "[b]ecause Mr. Wright's travel was not authorized
   under either  the reduced per  diem method or the  actual expense
   method, it must have been authorized under the 'lodgings-plus per
   diem method.'"  The claimant  asks us to reconsider our decision,
   and in particular, this conclusion.  According to Mr. Wright, the
   record does not contain sufficient evidence on which to base what
   he  calls our "assumption"  that his travel  was authorized under
   the lodgings-plus per diem method.
 
        The record  contains  clear evidence  on  this point.    Mr.
   Wright's travel orders  show that he  was authorized the  maximum
   amounts for  per diem expenses  for his temporary  duty location,
   rather than a reduced per diem allowance for his travel.   See 41
   CFR  301-11.6, 301-11.7,  ch.  301  app. A.    The travel  orders
   explicitly  do not  authorize  reimbursement  of actual  expenses
   incurred.
 
 
        The  travel orders explain  that if reimbursement  of actual
   expenses  is  authorized, "receipts  are  required  for lodging."
   From this statement, Mr. Wright has argued, both initially and on
   reconsideration, that  because reimbursement  of actual  expenses
   was not authorized,  receipts were not required for  lodging.  As
   we explained in  the earlier decision, a complete  reading of the
   Federal Travel  Regulation shows  that this  analysis is  clearly
   incorrect.
 
        There is no need to  reconsider our earlier decision in this
   case.
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge