Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
                    ________________________________
 
                            December 6, 1999
                    ________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14966-TRAV
 
 
                In the Matter of BERNHARD H. REEVES, JR.
 
 
        Bernhard H. Reeves, Jr., Goose Creek, SC, Claimant.
 
        Judy Hughes, Travel Policy,  Defense Finance and  Accounting
   Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of the Navy.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant,  Bernhard H. Reeves,  Jr., a civilian  employee of
   the Department  of the Navy,  Naval Audit Service  in Charleston,
   South Carolina,  seeks reimbursement  for lodging and  additional
   per diem, incurred  because  claimant used  his  privately  owned
   vehicle (POV) instead of traveling by air carrier, as authorized.
   Because claimant  is entitled  only to  the constructive cost  of
   traveling by common carrier and  the associated per diem, we deny
   the claim.
 
 
                               Background
 
        Claimant, whose  permanent duty station  was in  Charleston,
   South Carolina,  was scheduled to report to Norfolk, Virginia, on
   a  temporary duty assignment (TDY) lasting from February 16 until
   February 19, 1999.  He was authorized to travel by air carrier at
   the expense  of the Government,  but he elected to  travel by POV
   instead. 
    
        Claimant departed  from Charleston on  Sunday, February  14,
   1999,  and  arrived  in Norfolk  on  Monday,  February 15,  1999.
   Claimant reported to duty between February 16, 1999, and February
   19,  1999.   On  February  19, 1999,  claimant  departed his  TDY
   station  at 2:00 p.m. and  traveled by POV,  driving for five and
   one-half hours  to  Havelock, North Carolina,  where he  remained
   overnight.   Had claimant  traveled by  common carrier,  he would
   have departed from Norfolk on a flight which left at 3:08 p.m. on
   Friday, February 19, 1999, and arrived in Charleston at 5:00 p.m.
   the same  day.  Claimant would have arrived home from the airport
   by 6:30 p.m.
 
 
        Because claimant did not work a full day on Friday, February
   19,  1999,  and would  have  arrived  home  that evening  had  he
   traveled  by air,  the agency  reimbursed him  $28.50 for  three-
   quarters  of the  per diem  allowance for  Norfolk for  that day.
   Claimant  was also  reimbursed for the  constructive cost  of his
   flight.   He is requesting additional reimbursement in the amount
   of $73.14, which  includes lodging on Friday night,  a full day s
   per diem for Friday, and three-quarters per diem for Saturday.
 
                               Discussion
 
        An employee of the Government who is traveling on its behalf
   is expected to use the method of transportation authorized by the
   agency as most  advantageous to the Government.   41 CFR 301-10.4
   (1998).   "Travel by  common carrier is  presumed to be  the most
   advantageous  method  of  transportation and  must  be  used when
   reasonably  available."    Id.  301-10.5(a).    If  a  Government
   employee  traveling  on  official  business  elects  a  means  of
   transportation  other than  that specifically  authorized  by the
   agency, he  is responsible for  any additional costs that  may be
   incurred.  Id. 301-10.6.  
 
        Claimant was authorized to travel via air carrier to his TDY
   station.   Instead,  he elected to  travel by  POV.   When,  as a
   matter of personal preference, an employee uses a privately owned
   vehicle instead of  a common carrier, the most  that the employee
   can be reimbursed is the  constructive cost of the common carrier
   transportation plus the  constructive per diem by that  method of
   transportation.    Earl C. Cates, Jr., GSBCA 14209-TRAV, 98-1 BCA
     29,392   (1997).      Therefore,  claimant   is   entitled   to
   reimbursement for  the cost of  the common carrier, plus  the per
   diem  allowance which  would  have  accompanied  that  method  of
   transportation.  
 
        Claimant contends he should be  reimbursed for a full day of
   per diem and  lodging on his departure day and a partial per diem
   on the following day, in order to avoid traveling during off-duty
   hours.  Claimant contends that paragraph C1058-B.3.b of the Joint
   Travel Regulations  (JTR) permitted  him to  depart from  the TDY
   station the morning after completing a TDY assignment, to prevent
   travel  during   off-duty  hours.     JTR C1058-B.3.b   provides:
   "Ordinarily, an  employee on  official travel  isn't required  to
   travel during  unreasonable hours  at night."   Claimant  has not
   established that completing his  TDY assignment at 2:00  p.m. and
   arriving in Charleston at 5:00 p.m., and home by 6:30 p.m., would
   have  necessitated  travel during  "unreasonable hours  at night"
   within the meaning of  this regulation.  In fact,  in driving his
   POV, claimant  did not  arrive at  his elected  destination until
   7:30 p.m., an hour after he would have arrived at home.
 
                                Decision
 
        The claim is denied.  
   ________________________________
 
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge