Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ March 15, 2000 ______________________ GSBCA 15105-TRAV In the Matter of SUSAN K. HOWARD Susan K. Howard, Einsiedlerhof Air Station, Germany, Claimant. Charles N. Stockwell, Travel Branch, Directorate of Travel and Vendor Pay, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Susan K. Howard, is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (DoD) stationed at Einsiedlerhof Air Station (AS) in Germany. In March 1999 she submitted paperwork requesting orders for renewal agreement travel to the United States from April 20-26, 1999. She was told by personnel at Ramstein Air Base (AB), which processed her request, that she could make her own arrangements and be reimbursed. The only limitations mentioned were that she was required to use a United States flag carrier and that she would be reimbursed no more than the amount of the contracted fare. Ms. Howard states that she specifically asked whether there were any limitations on where she could purchase the ticket and was told there were not. Claimant notes that approximately one month earlier she had been notified that for temporary duty (TDY) travel, all travel arrangements were required to be made through a Government contracted travel agency or through the travel management office (TMO) located at the base. Prior to this announcement, civilian employees at Einsiedlerhof AS had been told that they could buy their airline tickets anywhere they wanted and be reimbursed so long as they bought from a U.S. flag carrier and did not exceed the contract carrier fare. Because it was more convenient, these employees had customarily used a travel agency near their station, in lieu of making trips to Ramstein AB. It was this announcement that prompted Ms. Howard to specifically inquire about what limitations might apply to renewal travel. When she was told she could make her own arrangements she assumed the rules for renewal travel were different. In addition, Ms. Howard reviewed and relied upon paragraph 5 on the reverse side of her travel orders. This paragraph stated as follows: Employee may elect to utilize commercial air TP [transportation] at own expense by routing of choice. Use of GV [Government] TP of any kind on a space available basis is not authorized. Reimbursement (include per diem and other reimbursement expenses) will be made after completion of travel limited to the costs to the GVT for TVL [travel] by the authorized mode of TP (e.g., U.S. flag carrier) and usual travel route. Ms. Howard construed this provision to authorize her to purchase her own tickets and be reimbursed up to the cost of the contract fare. Accordingly, she ordered her tickets through the private agency near her station, and in fact used the contract carrier and the usual travel route. She received the Government rate as well. When she submitted her voucher, the claim for reimbursement was denied based on paragraph C2207 of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which at the time provided as follows: A. Use of Travel Offices. In arranging official travel, employees are authorized to use the following in accordance with Service regulations: 1. Commercial travel offices (CTO) under contract to their respective organizations; 2. In-house travel offices; 3. General Services Administration (GSA) Travel Management Centers (TMC). Except as indicated . . . below, when an employee purchases transportation from a travel agent (other than a CTO, in house travel office, or TMC), reimbursement is authorized only when the employee provides acceptable information that the services of a CTO, in house travel office or TMC aren't reasonably available and ticketing arrangements can't be secured from a branch office or general agent of an American-flag carrier. B. Infrequent Traveler. An infrequent traveler; 1. who is unaware of the general prohibition against use of travel agents (other than a CTO, in house travel office or TMC), and 2. who inadvertently purchases transportation with personal funds from a travel agent, may be granted an exception on a one-time basis and paid for the travel costs incurred not to exceed the cost which would have properly been chargeable to the Government if the transportation services had been purchased directly from the carrier. In such cases, the traveler must be advised that recurrence of such use of travel agents results in denial of reimbursement unless it can be demonstrated that the traveler had no alternative. Although initially Ms. Howard was granted approval for a one-time exception under JTR C2207-B, the command subsequently decided, based upon claimant's statements about TDY in her letter, that this exception is inapplicable in this situation. Accordingly, the Air Force concluded that it could not pay the claim and forwarded the matter to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), which submitted the claim to the Board. Discussion Ms. Howard makes a number of compelling points. Although she was aware of the policy with respect to TDY travel, claimant thought there might be an exception with respect to renewal agreement travel. This understanding was supported by her reading of the language in the travel orders, which did not instruct her to use the CTO and which suggested that she could be reimbursed for tickets that she purchased at her own expense. Further, Ms. Howard points out, she specifically asked her contact in the travel office at Ramstein AB if she was required to use the CTO for this trip and was told that she could use the private travel agency for her renewal agreement travel and be reimbursed. Regrettably, that advice was erroneous and cannot bind the Government. The paragraph in the travel orders was intended to convey only that the traveler could use her own funds to purchase her ticket, not that she was not required to go through the CTO or TMO.[foot #] 1 Under the regulations in effect at the time, Ms. Howard was required to use the CTO or the TMO in order to be reimbursed for her airfare. There is, however, an avenue under which the Air Force may exercise its discretion to compensate Ms. Howard. Although Ms. Howard conceded that she had traveled periodically for TDY, she had never before taken renewal agreement travel. The orders she had received for TDY were significantly different from the orders she received for her renewal agreement travel. The regulation does not expressly limit the term "infrequent traveler" so as to proscribe its application here, and Board precedent addresses this issue on a case-by-case basis. See Louis J. Samuelson, GSBCA 14720-TRAV, 99-1 BCA 30,166 (1998); Andrew A. Rahaman, GSBCA 14365-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,679. Given the misleading nature of the outdated orders issued and the incorrect advice provided to this claimant, and in light of the fact that Ms. Howard was a first time renewal agreement traveler, we believe that this exception may reasonably be construed to apply in this instance, as the Air Force itself initially concluded. Accordingly, we find that the Air Force may reimburse Ms. Howard the amount spent up to the amount which would have been incurred had the CTO issued the tickets. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 We note that this situation could have been avoided by more careful drafting of the travel orders to clearly inform the traveling employee that use of the CTO or TMO is mandatory and that failure to do so will result in nonpayment of the expenses incurred.