Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ April 15, 2003 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 15961-TRAV In the Matter of JACQUELINE G. SABLAN Jacqueline G. Sablan, Yigo, Guam, Claimant. Joseph Tock, Attorney Advisor, 36th Air Base Wing (PACAF), Department of the Air Force, Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, appearing for Department of the Air Force. BORWICK, Board Judge. In this matter claimant sent her children on renewal agreement travel (RAT). Claimant did not accompany her children for any portion of the trip. Under those circumstances, the agency, the Department of the Air Force, may not, under statute and the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), pay for the cost of her children's trip as authorized RAT. The Government's establishment of the debt for the children's air fare was in accord with the statute and the JTR. Background Claimant was a personnel specialist at Andersen Air Force Base (AFB) in Guam at all times relevant to the claim. In May 1999, claimant was hired by the thirty-sixth air base wing. She was eligible for RAT on May 27, 2000, and up to ninety days thereafter. In September 1999, the agency had extended claimant's tour from June 2000 to June 2002. Claimant explains that she "signed for [twenty-four] months because [she] wanted to stay in Guam." According to claimant, in February 2000, claimant's organization was preparing for a reduction-in-force (RIF). Claimant has been specially trained in running RIFs and was one of two personnel specialists who were responsible for running RIFs. In March 2000, claimant's supervisor told claimant that due to the departure of a staffing specialist, no leave would be granted during the contemplated RIF because of the workload. Claimant says that she brought up the subject of claimant's possible RAT in the June time frame to her supervisor, but that "nothing firm was discussed at that time." On or about March 27, claimant made airline reservations for her children's travel on June 5, 2000, from Guam to Seattle, Washington, with a return trip to Guam on August 2, 2000. On June 2, the agency issued RAT orders authorizing claimant and her dependents to travel from Guam to Bremerton, Washington, with travel to commence on or about June 15. On or about June 5, claimant mentioned the possibility of her taking RAT, since her children's school ended on June 9. Claimant says she contemplated her children taking RAT with claimant joining the children later. However, for workload reasons dealing with a RIF in the office, she was told that she could not take leave at that time. After the Government issued the travel orders, claimant changed the pre-arranged June 5 date for her children's travel from Guam from June 5 to June 15; the return date of August 2 remained the same. On June 15, 2000, claimant sent her dependents on RAT unaccompanied by claimant. Claimant did not take RAT during the period of her children's travel, or for that matter, at all. Claimant says that "[her children's] school started on 08 August 2000 as I recall and I never did request to take RAT to accompany them as they were back in school. It was also the policy of the CPF that RAT could not be performed after 90 days of the eligibility window (26 Aug 2000)." She also states that "I was not in a position to change the dates of my children's RAT. The dates of the RAT were only there for the purpose of being in the United States with my mother for the summer . . . while I performed the RIF at Andersen AFB." Claimant says that in the June-September 2000 period, her office lost one experienced personnel specialist and gained an inexperienced personnel specialist. Given the fluid personnel situation in the office claimant states that she "did not see any way that I would be allowed to perform RAT." Claimant was paid for the costs of her children's airfare. On or about August 8, 2002, the agency established a debt of $3512.32 against claimant for the cost of her children's travel to Bremerton, Washington, having determined that unaccompanied RAT was not allowed under JTR C4516. Discussion Statute provides in pertinent part: Under regulations prescribed under section 5738 of this title, an agency shall pay from its appropriations the expenses of round-trip travel of an employee, and the transportation of his immediate family, but not household goods, from his post of duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii to the place of his actual residence at the time of appointment or transfer to the post of duty, after he has satisfactorily completed an agreed period of service outside the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii and is returning to his actual place of residence to take leave before serving another tour of duty at the same or another post of duty outside the continental United States, Alaska, and Hawaii under a new written agreement made before departing from the post of duty. 5 U.S.C. 5728(a) (2000). The purpose of RAT is to allow an employee who is stationed outside the continental United States to return to the United States between tours of duty overseas. Clyde Huyck, B-259632 (June 12, 1995). The JTR implements these provisions to effectuate the statute's purpose. The JTR prescribe certain eligibility requirements: C4151 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL OCONUS AREAS To be eligible for allowances described in par. C4150, prior to departure from the OCONUS [outside the continental United States] PDS [permanent duty station], an employee must have: 1. satisfactorily completed an agreed period of service or the prescribed tour of duty 2. entered into a new written agreement for another period of service at the same or another post or duty outside CONUS: (the agreement will cover costs incident to travel to the employee's place of actual residence or alternate location and return and any additional cost paid by the Government as a result of a transfer of th employee to another PDS overseas at the time of the tour renewal agreement travel. . . . JTR C4151 (May 2000). Under the JTR, an employee who has earned RAT may not be denied it. "[T[he time at which leave is granted to [perform RAT]," however, "is subject to approval by the overseas command concerned." JTR C4155-B. Management may request an employee to delay RAT by extending the initial tour (or tour then in effect) for a period not to exceed ninety days if (a) the employee is engaged in a project which is scheduled to be completed within a reasonable time, (b) there is a temporary shortage of personnel, or (c) for other cogent reasons. JTR C4155-B.1. It has long been recognized that the statute governing RAT does not authorize payment of transportation expenses of the employee's dependents from the overseas post to the place of residence in the United States unless the employee herself returns to the United States for the purpose of taking leave. Lt. Col. John F. Kent, B-177097 (Jan. 19, 1973); 35 Comp. Gen. 101 (1955). Thus, the JTR provide that an employee may travel alone or be accompanied by dependents. Although dependents may travel unaccompanied by the employee, they cannot perform round trip travel under RAT authority if the employee concerned does not perform authorized RAT. JTR C4156. Because claimant did not take RAT at any time during her dependents' travel, the Government was not authorized to pay for the dependents' cost of travel under the RAT authority. The agency's establishment of the debt for $3512.32 was in accord with statute and the JTR. Claimant argues that she was denied RAT. This is not precisely the case, although we can understand why claimant feels that the agency's denial of leave to take RAT at a particular time amounts to a denial of the RAT itself. The agency, in fact, issued an order granting claimant RAT, but her employing office refused to grant claimant leave to take the RAT between June 15 and August 2, the time period that met her children's summer after- school schedule and her personal convenience. Under JTR C4155-B, leave to perform RAT is subject to the approval of the OCONUS command concerned and the command here had non-frivolous reasons--a shortage of experienced personnel and the need for her to participate in the conduct of a RIF--for denying claimant leave during that period. Claimant says that because of the office workload, she would not have been able to take RAT during the ninety-day window for extension of her tour of duty, which she maintains ended on August 26, 2000. Whether or not that is the case, the issue here centers on the children's travel, not claimant's RAT. In the absence of RAT by the claimant, the agency simply lacks authority to pay the costs of the children's travel. Finally, claimant maintains that she was ill-advised by her supervisor. Claimant complains that her supervisor did not tell her of the financial consequences to claimant of sending her children on unaccompanied RAT or discuss available alternatives to RAT. While we are sympathetic, bad or erroneous advice by agency personnel cannot enlarge claimant's entitlements. Dane P. Summerville, GSBCA 15943-RELO (Feb. 20, 2003) (citing Masood Badizadegan, GSBCA 14393-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,789). Claimant seeks waiver of the debt. Waiver is a matter committed to the discretion of Executive Branch officials and beyond our jurisdiction. Andrew J. Duff, GSBCA 15721- RELO, 02-2 BCA 32,033. Nevertheless, the agency may want to consider, given claimant's dedication to her job and the extenuating circumstances that prevented her from taking RAT with her children, whether exercise of the waiver authority under 5 U.S.C. 5584 (2000) is appropriate. The claim is denied. ____________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge