Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 May 26, 2000 GSBCA 15292-TRAV In the Matter of JERRY R. TETER Jerry R. Teter, Bruceton Mills, WV, Claimant. Bobby Lewis, State Director, Rural Development, Department of Agriculture, Morgantown, WV, appearing for Department of Agriculture. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). When Jerry R. Teter drives southwest on interstate highways from his home in Bruceton Mills, West Virginia, his journey takes him past his Department of Agriculture office in Morgantown, West Virginia. During January and February, 2000, Mr. Teter was assigned on three occasions to temporary duty in various locations in that direction beyond Morgantown. On each occasion, the assignment required the employee to spend at least one night away from home. Mr. Teter was authorized to use his own vehicle for transportation. Upon his return from these trips, Mr. Teter asked to be reimbursed for the use of his vehicle in an amount calculated by multiplying the number of miles actually traveled by the mileage rate prescribed by the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). The agency deducted, for each segment of a trip which took the employee past his office on his way to or from home, the number of miles between those two locations. Mr. Teter maintains that the deductions were impermissible. According to the agency, controlling authority is found in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), at 41 CFR 301-71.203(a) (1999), and an Agriculture Department manual, at RD Instruction 2036.4(a)(4) (Aug. 20, 1997). The former provision states, "The traveler must ensure all travel expenses are prudent and necessary." The latter says, "No mileage shall be paid for travel between employee's residence and alternate duty point(s) in the vicinity of his/her official duty station . . . , except [in circumstances not relevant here]." Mr. Teter maintains that the provision of the Agriculture Department manual cited by the agency is not applicable to his situation. He calls to our attention instead FTR provisions 41 CFR 301-4.1(b) and -4.2(c)(2), Agriculture Travel Regulation 301-4.1(a)(1) (Oct. 3, 1994), and RD Instruction 2036.4(a)(3). The FTR provisions cited by Mr. Teter have been revised and now read as follows: "If you travel by [p]rivately owned automobile . . . [t]he distance between your origin and destination is [a]s shown in standard mileage guides, or the actual miles driven as determined by odometer readings." 41 CFR 301-10.302. "When may I use a taxi or shuttle service? . . . Between residence and office on day you perform official travel. . . . [Y]our agency may authorize/approve reimbursement of the usual taxicab fare plus tip in the following situations: (1) From your home to your office on the day you depart the office on an official trip requiring at least one night's lodging; and (2) From your office to your home on the day you return to the office from your trip." Id. 301-10.420(c). The Agriculture Travel Regulation and RD Instruction provisions both say, "No mileage may be paid between an employee's home and official duty station except for the day of departure and the day of return from travel which includes at least one night away from the duty station." The employee's reading of the regulations is better than the agency's. Under statute, employees who use their own vehicles while engaged in official business are entitled to be paid for that use at rates per mile established by the Administrator of General Services, and under conditions prescribed by that official, in the FTR. 5 U.S.C. 5704(a), 5707(a), (b) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). It is a longstanding rule that because an employee's daily commute between his home and his office is personal, not official business, agencies may not reimburse employees for commuting expenses. Leon Rodgers, Jr., GSBCA 14678-TRAV, 99-1 BCA 30,376; John B. Courtnay, GSBCA 14508-TRAV, 98-2 BCA 29,791; Freddie Fenton, GSBCA 13638-TRAV, 97-1 BCA 28,711 (1996) (all citing decisions of the Comptroller General, our predecessor in settling claims by federal employees involving expenses incurred for official travel and transportation). When an employee drives from his home past his office on the way to a temporary duty location, however, that is not a commute between home and office. We have held that agency rules similar to the Agriculture Travel Regulation and RD Instruction provisions cited by Mr. Teter, which make the travel compensable if the employee spends at least one night away from his permanent duty station, fairly construe the FTR provisions he notes. Roger B. Sherry, GSBCA 14399, 98-2 BCA 30,044. These Agriculture Department rules apply to Mr. Teter's situation, since on each trip he spent at least one night on the road. The rules the agency cites, on the other hand, are not helpful in resolving this case. The agency does not contend that the employee's having started and finished his trip at his home, rather than his office, was imprudent or unnecessary, and the travel he undertook was not in the vicinity of his official station. We conclude that Mr. Teter is entitled to be reimbursed, at the appropriate mileage rate, for having driven the disputed distances while engaged in official business. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge