Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ June 18, 1999 _________________ GSBCA 14956-TRAV In the Matter of JOSEPH K. DUNLEAVY Joseph K. Dunleavy, Mt. Holly, NJ, Claimant. Ray E. York, Director, Systems and Procedures Directorate, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant in this case, Joseph K. Dunleavy, is an employee of the State of New Jersey. He works in the State's Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. In early July 1995, he went on official travel to New Mexico to serve as a team leader for an environmental compliance assessment survey undertaken by the New Mexico Army National Guard. His expenses were to be paid by the Department of Defense. The United States Property and Fiscal Office for New Jersey (USPFO) settled his claim for reimbursement. Mr. Dunleavy is dissatisfied with the settlement and has appealed the USPFO determination. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has submitted his claim to us on his behalf together with an agency report. Mr. Dunleavy has submitted comments on the agency report. We are unpersuaded by his submissions, however, and consequently find no reason to disturb the original USPFO determination. Background The exercise in which Mr. Dunleavy was to participate was originally scheduled to begin in Sante Fe, New Mexico, at 2:00 p.m. on July 6 and to continue up to and including July 10. Travel arrangements were to be made through the USPFO working with the contract travel office (CTO). Mr. Dunleavy states that he requested the USPFO transportation agent to advise him on the costs and availability of air travel to Santa Fe with arrival on July 5 and departure on July 10. Claimant states that sometime later the transportation agent telephoned him to say there was nothing available to Santa Fe and suggested he check with contacts in New Mexico to see what other city he might alternatively fly to in order to get to Santa Fe. Mr. Dunleavy states that he called a contact in New Mexico and was told that it was best to fly into Albuquerque and then drive for approximately one hour by car to Santa Fe. Having obtained this information, he claims to have requested the transportation agent to purchase a ticket to Albuquerque. At this point, the agent allegedly advised him that nothing was available for a flight at Government rates to and from Albuquerque for the days requested and that round trip commercial fare would be approximately $1530. Mr. Dunleavy states that the transportation agent then sought to determine if space was available at Government rates for either Saturday, July 4, or Friday, July 3, but found nothing. He further states that she then determined space was available for Thursday, July 2. Mr. Dunleavy says that the transportation agent explained to him that flights into Albuquerque on that date at the Government rate of $268 were "wide open." Mr. Dunleavy explains that he then conferred with an official at the National Guard Bureau regarding the feasibility of such an early departure. He and the official did a cost comparison of the commercial fare for Sunday, July 5, to the combined cost of per diem beginning on July 2 and the reduced cost of a flight that day to Albuquerque at the Government rate. They concluded that it would be cheaper to fly into Albuquerque on July 2 at the Government rate than to fly in at a later date at a commercial rate. Mr. Dunleavy states that he then informed the transportation agent at USPFO that he wanted two tickets to Albuquerque for July 2. The second was for his wife, who would be going with him. The agent allegedly stated that the cost of the ticket for his wife would be $230 but that he should purchase that ticket himself. The agent then reportedly made reservations for Mr. Dunleavy and his wife. Mr. Dunleavy explains that on June 30 his travel orders were ready and, upon taking them over to USPFO, he was given his ticket. On July 2, he left as scheduled. The recollection of the USPFO transportation agent who dealt with Mr. Dunleavy is in conflict with the claimant's account of why he chose to leave for Santa Fe on July 2. The agent contends that Mr. Dunleavy originally asked for two round trip tickets to Santa Fe at Government rates. Departure was to be on July 5 with return on July 11. When asked if his wife was traveling on official business, Mr. Dunleavy allegedly replied that she was and was to serve as an observer. The transportation agent states that she advised Mr. Dunleavy that she would release a ticket for his wife only after seeing his wife's travel orders. The USPFO transportation agent further states that on the following day she was told by the CTO that all Government rate seats for flights into Santa Fe for the date requested were already booked and that only commercial seats costing over $600 were available. The transportation agent states that Mr. Dunleavy then directed her to purchase the commercial tickets. She states that she explained to him that she could not approve such a purchase since there was space available at a Government rate of $252 for flights into Albuquerque, which was only fifty- nine miles from Santa Fe. The transportation agent states that this was unacceptable to Mr. Dunleavy and that, at his request, she checked on the availability of Government rate seats for flights into Santa Fe for a few days prior to July 5. She found nothing. According to the transportation agent, at this point, she advised Mr. Dunleavy that she would not purchase commercial tickets for a flight into Santa Fe on July 5 without confirmation from the claimant's program manager that the purchase could be made. She states that Mr. Dunleavy then left her office but telephoned a short time afterwards with instructions to book him and his wife into Albuquerque for July 2 with return on July 10. She claims that Mr. Dunleavy called for his tickets on June 30. When asked for a copy of his wife's orders, he is said to have replied that she had already gotten her ticket. The transportation agent states that she then advised Mr. Dunleavy that she would cancel his wife's reservation since it was made for a Government seat and she was apparently not traveling on official business. Mr. Dunleavy is said to have objected to this. The agency report for this case contains a copy of an excerpt from the claimant's ticketing history. An entry for June 27 (three days before Mr. Dunleavy picked up his own ticket at the USPFO) shows that, on that date, he attempted unsuccessfully to make a direct purchase of a ticket for his wife at the Government rate but was told that this could only be done using a Government credit card or Government transportation request. In seeking reimbursement for his trip to New Mexico, Mr. Dunleavy has claimed a per diem from July 2. Because the USPFO transportation agent insists that there was continual availability of Government rate seats on flights into Albuquerque, the USPFO has denied Mr. Dunleavy's claim in part and has paid him based on a constructive departure for Santa Fe on July 6. Mr. Dunleavy has appealed the denial. His appeal was forwarded by the USPFO to DFAS. DFAS, in turn, has submitted the matter for our review with the recommendation that the claim be denied. Discussion The fundamental issue presented in this case is whether it is true that Mr. Dunleavy was required to depart on July 2 in order to take advantage of the Government discount on his flight to Albuquerque. If he was not, then the costs incurred from that date until July 6 were not essential for the transaction of official business and, therefore, are not reimbursable. (41 CFR 301-2.2 (1998)). The evidence in the record on this issue is in sharp conflict. The USPFO transportation agent insists that the early departure was unnecessary and that claimant could have flown into Albuquerque at the Government rate on July 6. Mr. Dunleavy's version of events is in direct disagreement. Under the Board's rules, a claimant bears the burden of establishing his or her right to payment. Rule 401(c) (48 CFR 6104.1(c) (1998)); see Michael S. Knezevich, GSBCA 14398-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,607. In a case such as this, where the evidence is in obvious conflict, it is incumbent upon the claimant to provide us with evidence and/or argument sufficient to persuade us that his version of the critical facts is the more reliable. He has not done so. Furthermore, the agency's report raises troubling issues that touch on the claimant's basic credibility. Although provided with a copy of the agency report, the claimant has said little regarding these matters. Under circumstances such as these, we conclude that the agency acted reasonably in relying on the statements of the transportation agent. We, therefore, find no reason to disturb the agency's settlement of the travel claim. Decision The claim is denied. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge