Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405







                         ________________



                         December 3, 2003

                         ________________





                   GSBCA 15704-TRAV, 15705-TRAV





               In the Matters of JEFFREY L. PESLER





     Jeffrey L. Pesler, Alpha, OH, Claimant.



     James P. Gilmore, Chief, Financial Services Office, Headquarters Aeronautical

Systems Center, Department of the Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH,

appearing for Department of the Air Force.



GOODMAN,  Board Judge.



     Claimant, Jeffrey L. Pesler, is a civilian employee of the Department of the Air Force.

He  has filed these two cases requesting reimbursement of various costs incurred while on

temporary duty (TDY) travel.  The agency and the claimant have advised the Board that they

have resolved all issues raised in these cases except one.  Accordingly, we issue this decision

on the remaining issue.



                        Factual Background

     

     Claimant's permanent duty station (PDS) was  Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

The Air Force sent him on long-term TDY to Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland,

to take part in a joint program among the Navy, Marines, and Air Force.  In 2000 and 2001,

during this long-term TDY in Maryland, claimant traveled pursuant to TDY orders issued 

by the Navy to other locations around the country, including his PDS.  The Navy paid

claimant $34 a day in miscellaneous and incidental expenses (M&IE) while claimant was on

TDY at his PDS.  It did not pay claimant lodging, as claimant maintained a permanent

residence at his PDS at his own expense.



     When the Air Force settled various travel claims submitted by claimant, it deducted

from the amount due the claimant $34 per day that the Navy paid claimant while on TDY at

Wright Patterson.  The amount of the deduction totaled $642.



     According to the Air Force, the reduction was made pursuant to applicable regulation

because:



     . . . while claimant [was on] TDY at [Patuxent] River and returned back to

     [Wright Patterson] AFB (claimant's  PDS), [claimant was] not entitled to any

     per diem and since another agency (the Navy) had previously paid [claimant]

     these days, they had to be collected back.  Based on this federal regulation,

     [the  agency] deducted $34 [per day] that was paid to [claimant] by [the Navy]

     while [claimant] was at [Wright Patterson].



     Claimant disagrees with the Air Force's recoupment of the $34 per day paid by the

Navy while claimant was on TDY at Wright Patterson.  Claimant believes that the  regulation

relied upon by the agency was "written to prevent [an employee from] collecting funds paid

by the home station when the traveler returns home.  In my case, I traveled as a Navy

employee TDY to [Wright Patterson] in addition to being an [Air Force] employee 'returning

home'."



                            Discussion



     It is well established that lodging and meal expenses may not be reimbursed when an

employee incurs these expenses at the official duty station despite  unusual work conditions. 

Ronald Majtyka, GSBCA 16120-TRAV (July 9, 2003); Jerry B. Dulworth, GSBCA

16035-TRAV, et al., 03-2 BCA   32,312; Leo McManus, GSBCA 15549-TRAV, 01-2 BCA 

 31,507; Roy L. Siemons, GSBCA 15325-TRAV, 01-1 BCA   31,178 (2000); Ollice C.

Holden, GSBCA 15175-TRAV, 00-1 BCA   30,815; Murray Lumpkin, GSBCA

14513-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   30,042.



     Claimant's situation was unusual.  He is an Air Force employee who was sent to his

PDS, where he maintained a permanent residence, on official travel from another location

where he was accomplishing long term TDY in a joint program involving the Air Force,

Marines, and Navy.  The Navy issued his travel orders.  He was not authorized lodging, as

he stayed at his permanent residence, but he was erroneously authorized per diem.  The Air

Force's rationale for recouping the per diem previously paid to him by the Navy under these

circumstances was the following provision from the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR):



     A per diem allowance shall not be allowed within the limits of the Permanent

     Duty Station (PDS), or at, or within the vicinity of, the place of residence from

     which the employee commutes daily to the official station.



JTR C4552-C.



     The agency is correct.  Claimant was not entitled to payment of per diem at his PDS.



                            Decision



     The claim is denied.







                                   __________________________________

                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN

                                   Board Judge