Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405







                                                 



                         October 26, 2004

                                                 





                         GSBCA 16480-TRAV





                 In the Matter of LINDA R. DREES





     Linda R. Drees, Fort Collins, CO, Claimant.



     C. Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park Service, Washington, DC, appearing

for Department of the Interior.



DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).



     Linda R. Drees challenges the determination by her employer, the National Park

Service, not to reimburse her for certain ground transportation expenses she incurred while

at a training session in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  We hold that the agency's action was

appropriate and deny the employee's claim.



                            Background



     The Park Service sent Ms. Drees to Cambridge in March 2004 to attend a four-week

training course at the Kennedy School of Government.  Her travel orders authorized her to

rent a car at Government expense.



     Ms. Drees chose not to rent a vehicle for the duration of her stay in Massachusetts. 

She felt that the rental would be at an excessively high cost, which she estimated to be about

$1000.  She did pay for automobile travel on three weekends, however, while she was

enrolled in the course.  On the weekend of April 9 to 11, Ms. Drees flew home to visit her

child.  She traveled to and from the nearest airport by taxicab.  On two other weekends, Ms.

Drees visited Cape Cod National Seashore.  She rented cars to get to and from the seashore,

where she says that on each visit, she spent about an hour speaking with employees and

volunteers.



     Ms. Drees' supervisor refused to have the Government pay for either the cab fare or

the car rental costs because in his view, the "expenses were not essential to official

government travel and the transaction of official business."  He denied reimbursement for

the cab fare on the ground that the employee was not authorized to fly home during the

training session and was consequently not authorized to claim ground transportation costs

associated with a flight taken for personal reasons.  (The air fare was not at issue; Ms. Drees

recognizes that it was a personal expense and has not claimed reimbursement for it.)  Instead

of reimbursing Ms. Drees for the cab fare, the agency paid her the subsistence allowance

appropriate to a stay in Cambridge for the weekend in question.  The supervisor denied

reimbursement for the car rentals and associated costs on the ground that the trips to Cape

Cod "were not official travel related to government business.  These trips were personal in

nature."  He noted that the authorization to rent a car at Government expense was for an

entirely different purpose   attending the training course.



     In response, Ms. Drees maintains that her supervisor knew of her desire to return

home to see her child; that car rental was expressly authorized in her travel orders; and that

the transportation costs for which she seeks reimbursement are far less than the cost the

Government would have incurred if she had rented a car for the entire time she was at the

training course.  The employee also alleges that because the agency violated procedural

requirements, particularly by not informing her promptly that her claim was improper and by

not advising her of her appeal rights, her claim should be paid.



                            Discussion



     An "agency may pay only those [travel] expenses [which are] essential to the

transaction of official business."  41 CFR 301-2.2 (2003).  The determination of what

constitutes "official business" is a management prerogative.  Wayne R. Smith, GSBCA

16193-RELO (July 28, 2004).  A specific determination will not be overturned unless it is

found to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.  Carl A. Willecke, GSBCA

16083-TRAV, 03-2 BCA   32,352.



     Ms. Drees' supervisor concluded that her trip home to see her child and her visits to

Cape Cod National Seashore were personal in nature and were "not essential to official

government travel and the transaction of official business."  The trip home was by the

employee's admission for personal reasons and not essential to the transaction of official

business.  As to the seashore visits, Ms. Drees offers in rebuttal to the supervisor's conclusion

only the fact that she spoke with Park Service employees and volunteers while there.  This

is not sufficient evidence on which to base a finding that the supervisor's determination was

arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.  We therefore leave standing the agency's

determination as to both the cab fare and the car rental and associated costs.  Because these

transportation expenses were incurred for personal reasons, not official business,

reimbursement would be inappropriate.



     We appreciate Ms. Drees' interest in having the Government avoid an unnecessary

expense, which she demonstrated by declining the opportunity to rent a car for the duration

of her stay in Cambridge.  Her good judgment does not give her license, however, to bill the

Government for lesser expenses that she incurred for personal reasons.



     We find specious the claimant's argument that her agency's failure to follow

procedural requirements mandates a grant of her claim.  Of the many allegations Ms. Drees

makes as to procedural failings, only one has even a hint of validity to it.  This is that the

Park Service did not comply with the Federal Travel Regulation's direction that each agency

notify an employee of any errors in a travel claim as soon as practicable after receipt of the

claim, and in no event more than seven working days after such receipt.  [Foot # 1 ]  See 41

CFR 301-71.208.  The Park Service responded to Ms. Drees' claim within twenty-four days,

not seven, of its receipt of the claim.  The regulation does not say what is to happen if an

agency does not comply with the directive for prompt notification of correctness of a claim,

however.  It most certainly does not mandate that the claim must be paid in full, other

regulatory provisions notwithstanding.  The regulation establishes only one consequence of

an agency's late processing of a travel claim: if an agency does not pay a proper claim within

thirty days of receiving it, the agency must pay to the employee a late payment fee, along

with the appropriate travel expense reimbursement.  Id. 301-71.209.  There is no evidence

that the Park Service failed to make appropriate reimbursement within thirty days of

receiving Ms. Drees' claim.



****************** Footnote Begin **********

[Foot # 1 ]       Demonstrating the futility of the other allegations, the second most prominent

charge is that the agency did not advise her of her appeal rights as to the claim, as required

by 41 CFR 301-71.206(c), but in denying reimbursement of the expenses at issue here, her

supervisor expressly told her that she could request reconsideration by the agency and submit

the claim for adjudication to this Board.

****************** Footnote End ************





                             Decision



     The claim is denied.











                                   _________________________ 

                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS

                                   Board Judge