Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ November 24, 1999 _________________________ GSBCA 14954-TRAV In the Matter of LOUIS F. SCHLEUGER Louis F. Schleuger, Yokosuka, Japan, Claimant. Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. HYATT, Board Judge. On July 7, 1998, claimant, Louis F. Schleuger, a civilian employee of the Department of the Navy, was issued temporary duty (TDY) orders to travel from Yokosuka, Japan to San Diego, California, via Honolulu, Hawaii, and return. Travel was to commence on July 11, 1998. The orders stated that Mr. Schleuger was authorized to use restricted discount fares and would purchase his own ticket. No explanation or justification accompanied the orders, but the orders did state that reimbursement would not exceed the cost of Government-procured air fare. According to the transportation officer, Mr. Schleuger purchased his own tickets to accommodate his personal travel needs and not because of official travel requirements. The tickets were purchased at a cost of $814.71, although the Government fare for the same travel was $560. After Mr. Schleuger's arrival in Honolulu, Hawaii, he was notified, prior to departure for San Diego, that he should return to Japan because of a change in mission requirements. He purchased a return ticket from Honolulu to Yokosuka at a cost of $775. He did not use a contract carrier or otherwise contact the Navy for assistance. The Government fare for this trip would have been $225. Mr. Schleuger has been compensated for the cost of his air travel up to the full amount of the contract fares, but seeks reimbursement of the additional amounts expended. Although Mr. Schleuger's command supports his claim for reimbursement of the full amount expended, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is of the view that he has already been reimbursed the maximum amount permitted under applicable regulations and his travel orders. We agree. Discussion The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) provide that travel arrangements for employees are required to be made through a contract travel office (CTO), an in-house Department of Defense travel office, or a General Services Administration (GSA) travel management center (TMC). JTR C2207.[foot #] 1 There is an exception to this rule when, due to unusual circumstances, there is no alternative but to procure tickets from a non- contract travel agency or, in a foreign country, when the services of a CTO are not reasonably available and it is not possible to purchase directly from an American-flag carrier. There is no suggestion here that the tickets for official travel could not have been purchased from a CTO, however. With respect to the first transaction, DFAS is persuaded that Mr. Schleuger was not aware of the prohibition against purchasing airline tickets from a non-contract travel agency and recognizes that he relied in good faith on the authorization to purchase his own tickets provided in his travel orders. Those travel orders did, nonetheless, explicitly limit his reimbursement to the amount of the contract fare. Under these circumstances, DFAS is correct in asserting that the limitation should apply. Claimant was authorized to purchase his own ticket from a non-contract travel agency only to the extent the cost would not exceed the Government fare obtainable through the CTO. To the extent that claimant may have incurred nonrefundable expenses in arranging for personal travel in combination with TDY travel, that is a risk the traveler incurs when combining personal and business travel.[foot #] 2 The same limitation applies to the travel arrangements made in Hawaii in response to the cancellation of the TDY assignment. Government employees are expected to make travel arrangements through the CTO or using in-house services or a TMC. Even assuming that the initial travel orders continued to permit claimant to procure tickets on his own in these circumstances, he was not authorized to exceed the Government fare in doing so. Accordingly, DFAS has properly denied the claim. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) also provides that use of contract air carriers is mandatory, 41 CFR 301-50.1 (1998) ("If [the employee's] agency provides travel management services under a Government contract, [the employee] must use those services for common carrier transportation . . ."), and that employees "are responsible for any additional costs that result" from the use of an "unauthorized travel agent." 41 CFR 301-50.2. [foot #] 2 As a general matter when an employee combines official and personal travel, the Government's obligation is limited to reimbursement of the constructive cost of the official travel, assuming that the actual cost of the trip equals or exceeds that amount. See John A. Park, B-227468 (Mar. 11, 1988). ___ ____________ ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge