Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ April 24, 2000 ______________________ GSBCA 15231-TRAV In the Matter of CHARLES M. AUKER Charles M. Auker, Akron, OH, Claimant. Gary E. Jencson, Defense Contract Management District East, Defense Contract Management Command Cleveland, Defense Logistics Agency, Bratenahl, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. When an employee chooses to use a privately owned vehicle in lieu of an available Government vehicle for official travel, statute and regulation limit payment for mileage to the cost of travel by a Government vehicle. Background Charles M. Auker is an employee of the Department of Defense (DoD). In July 1999, he was assigned to the Defense Contract Management Command's Akron, Ohio office and his duty station was approximately ten miles away in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. On July 8, DoD directed Mr. Auker to report to an office in Bratenahl, Ohio on July 12, for a meeting with agency officials. Also on July 8, DoD authorized Mr. Auker to obtain safety shoes from a store in Cleveland, Ohio within the next forty-five days. DoD did not tell Mr. Auker what means of transportation he was supposed to use to get to Bratenahl and Cleveland. On July 12, Mr. Auker drove his privately owned vehicle from his duty station in Cuyahoga Falls to the store in Cleveland and then to the agency's Bratenahl office. After his meeting, he returned to Cuyahoga Falls. DoD and Mr. Auker agree that the trip distance was eighty-two miles. Mr. Auker did not ask for authorization to use his privately owned vehicle when he made his July 12 trip. Mr. Auker's supervisor states that he would not have authorized Mr. Auker to use his privately owned vehicle because DoD maintained four Government owned vehicles in Akron, and one of those would have been available for Mr. Auker to use. Mr. Auker says that he finds it hard to believe that his supervisor would have made a Government owned vehicle available, because he was not allowed to use a Government owned vehicle located in Cuyahoga Falls and because his supervisor told him on June 28, 1999, not to drive a Government owned vehicle and to use his own vehicle for official travel. Mr. Auker's supervisor says that he told Mr. Auker that the Government owned vehicle located in Cuyahoga Falls had been assigned to another employee when Mr. Auker was absent from work for an extended period of time. The direction that Mr. Auker's supervisor gave to him on June 28, 1999, is documented in a letter dated that day. In the letter, Mr. Auker's supervisor told him that a Government owned vehicle was available for him to use to travel to complete his security application, but that he should not use the vehicle for any purpose if he had not made arrangements, in advance, to complete the application. The June 28 letter does not direct Mr. Auker to use his privately owned vehicle for official travel. Although the record establishes that Mr. Auker's supervisor exercised control over who could use Government owned vehicles, it does not establish that he would have refused to make a Government owned vehicle available for Mr. Auker's July 12 trip. In August 1999, Mr. Auker submitted a claim for mileage at the rate of thirty-one cents per mile for the use of his privately owned vehicle on July 12. In December 1999, DoD told Mr. Auker that it would pay his claim, but at a rate of 10.5 cents per mile, because a Government owned vehicle was available to him on July 12, and he did not ask for authorization to use a privately owned vehicle for his travel. Mr. Auker asks us to review DoD's decision. Discussion DoD correctly concluded that Mr. Auker's mileage payment is limited to 10.5 cents per mile. The statute that authorizes DoD to reimburse employees for mileage when they travel on official Government business contains the following limitation: [I]n any case in which an employee who is engaged on official business for the Government chooses to use a privately owned vehicle in lieu of a Government vehicle, payment on a mileage basis is limited to the cost of travel by a Government vehicle. 5 U.S.C. 5704 (c) (Supp. IV 1998). Consistent with the statute, the Joint Travel Regulations, which apply to civilian employees of DoD, provide that when the use of a privately owned vehicle is authorized in advance or subsequently approved, DoD can pay an employee for mileage. Payment is limited, however, to 10.5 cents per mile if the agency has a Government furnished vehicle available and for that reason the employee would not ordinarily be authorized to use a privately owned vehicle, but the employee chooses to use a privately owned vehicle. The 10.5 cents per mile rate represents the cost of operating a Government owned vehicle. JTR C2158-A4 (Apr. 1, 1999), C4651-B2b(2) (July 1, 1999); see Marlene Daniels, GSBCA 14407-TRAV, 99-1 BCA 30,162 (1998). The facts bring Mr. Auker squarely within the payment limitation established by the statute and the regulations. Because DoD had a Government furnished vehicle available for Mr. Auker to use on July 12, it would not have authorized him to use a privately owned vehicle for his trip. Mr. Auker chose to use his own vehicle instead of one of the available Government owned vehicles, and so his mileage payment is limited to 10.5 cents per mile. There is no basis upon which to disturb DoD's conclusion that Mr. Auker should be paid 10.5 cents per mile for eighty-two miles. The claim is denied.[foot #] 1 ___________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Even though Mr. Auker is a member of a union and we assume that there is a collective bargaining agreement in place, we have the authority to settle this claim because payment of anything more than the cost of travel by a Government vehicle is precluded by statute and thus cannot be the subject of a collective bargaining grievance procedure. See John B. Courtnay, ___ ________________ GSBCA 14508-TRAV, 98-2 BCA 29,791.