Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 February 17, 2000 GSBCA 15164-TRAV In the Matter of ALEXANDRIA L. FABBRO Alexandria L. Fabbro, Tehachapi, CA, Claimant. Charles N. Stockwell, Travel Branch, Directorate of Travel and Vendor Pay, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver Center, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). When Alexandria L. Fabbro's long-term temporary duty assignment ended sooner than expected, her employer, the Department of the Air Force, required that she repay some of the money it had given her to cover expenses of lodging, meals, and incidental expenses associated with the temporary duty. Ms. Fabbro agrees that she owes the agency money, but maintains that the amount of the debt is less than the Air Force has demanded. We conclude that Ms. Fabbro's position, and not that of the Air Force, faithfully carries out the agency's intention in writing her travel orders. Additionally, in calculating the amount of repayment, we correct a minor error made by both the employee and the agency. Background The Air Force sent Ms. Fabbro on long-term temporary duty for training during 1997. Her assignment began on January 6. It was originally planned to end on September 30, but was extended to January 3, 1998. Ms. Fabbro's travel orders state that she was to receive $1000 per month for living expenses. In November 1997, she asked that this amount be increased to cover the costs of utilities she had been paying at her temporary duty residence. In a memorandum supporting this request, an agency employee suggested that the monthly payment be raised by $570 for November and December, to cover the estimated cost of $1140 Ms. Fabbro would incur for utilities from April to December. The request was approved with this understanding, and Ms. Fabbro's travel orders were amended to make the monthly payment $1570 for November and December, with the additional amount "for . . . reimbursement for utilities." Ms. Fabbro's temporary duty tour was cut short -- it ended on December 20, 1997. Later, after the Air Force had already made its monthly payment to her for December, the agency demanded repayment of $223.50. This amount consists of one-third of the allowance for December (that is, one-third of $1570, or $523.33), less $300 in transportation costs owed to the employee (and adjusted by a rounding error). Ms. Fabbro believes that the debt should be calculated differently. She suggests that because the $1140 in additional payments for living expenses was supposed to cover nine months of utility costs, it should be considered to have been applied at a rate of $126.67 ($1140 divided by nine) for each of the months from April to December. She believes that her liability is limited to one-third of the constructive allowance for December -- one-third of $1126.67 ($1000 base allowance plus $126.67 utility allowance), or $375.56 -- less the $300 transportation payment, for a net figure of $75.56. Discussion The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is now representing the Government in opposition to Ms. Fabbro's claim. DFAS bases the Government's position on a provision of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR): "A retroactive amendment must not be issued to change per diem (except as provided in pars. C4554-A and B) or mileage rates and reimbursement basis." JTR C3053-B. Two other agency rules are also referenced in the materials forwarded to us by DFAS. One is a Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation which states, "Travel orders may not be amended to increase or decrease entitlement to travel allowances after travel is performed. However, the original order may be amended after travel is performed when an error is obvious or travel requirements change en route." 9 DOD 7000.14-R 020204. An Air Force instruction states, "Retroactive amendments to increase or decrease the amount of money due the traveler must be fully justified . . . . Written requests for such amendments must clearly show the original order was unclear, incomplete, or lacked necessary information." AFI 65-103 1.2.15.7. In our view, these rules all support Ms. Fabbro's position. The clear purpose of the amendment to the employee's travel orders was to compensate her for $1140 in utility costs she had incurred and would incur over a nine-month period. Payment in two $570 chunks, rather than nine $126.67 pieces, was an administrative convenience in view of the lateness of the request for the amendment. The structure of the payments did not reflect the time when the utility costs would be incurred or the objective of reimbursing the employee for those expenses. To maintain constant the per diem (actually "per mensem," since living costs were being paid to Ms. Fabbro on a monthly basis) payments the agency had agreed to make for the duration of the employee's temporary duty assignment, the December payment must be adjusted from the amount of $570 provided in the previous amendment to her travel orders. The previous amendment, in light of the shortened duration of the assignment, is in error in that it obviously does not carry out the agency's intention. Because Ms. Fabbro remained on her assignment for only twenty days of December, and that month has thirty-one days, she must repay to the Air Force eleven thirty-firsts of the $1126.67 constructively-calculated allowance for December, or $399.79. (Both the claimant and the agency are in error in basing their calculations on the assumption that the month of December has only thirty days.) Her debt to the Air Force is this amount less the $300 the agency owes her in reimbursement of transportation costs she incurred. The net amount is $99.79. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge