Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                                                 

                         October 13, 2006
                                                 


                         GSBCA 16929-TRAV


                 In the Matter of JACK W. TUCKER


     Jack W. Tucker, Las Vegas, NV, Claimant.

     Kenneth T. Rye, Assistant Counsel, Military Sealift Fleet Support Command, Virginia
Beach, VA, appearing for Department of the Navy.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     In deciding this case, we reiterate two principles regarding federal travel law.

     First, we have frequently enunciated the equitable rule that once an agency has
authorized travel or relocation allowances which it had the discretion to grant, and the
employee incurs expenses in reliance on the authorization, the agency must reimburse the
employee for those expenses.  See, e.g., Thelma H. Harris, GSBCA 16303-RELO, 04-1 BCA
 32,540 (2003); Linda M. Conaway, GSBCA 15342-TRAV, 00-2 BCA  31,133; Cheryl A.
Cadwell, GSBCA 14148-RELO, 97-2 BCA  29,066.  The rule is reciprocal as well: once
an employee voluntarily agrees to pay travel or relocation allowances which are within an
agency's authority to grant or deny, the agency is not responsible for reimbursing the
employee for those costs.

     Second, if an agency interrupts an employee's leave by directing him to perform
temporary duty, the agency is responsible for the expenses incurred by the employee in
traveling to the location at which the duty is performed.  If an employee chooses to interrupt
his leave to perform temporary duty, however, he is responsible for whatever expenses he
incurs in traveling to the duty location.

                            Background

     Civilian mariners provide fuel, ammunition, food, and supplies to Navy ships
throughout the world.  In June 2004, one of these government employees, Jack W. Tucker,
completed a shipboard assignment, returned to his home in Las Vegas, Nevada, and entered
into leave status.

     While on leave, Mr. Tucker requested permission from his organization, the Military
Sealift Fleet Support Command (MSFSC), to attend a Department Head Administrative
Management class in Chesapeake, Virginia.  MSFSC explains, "This course is designed for
department heads or those soon to enter this position (masters, first officers, supply officers,
chief stewards, chief engineers and pursers)."  Mr. Tucker's placement officer denied the
request because this class was not required for the performance of the employee's duties in
the position he held, able seaman.

     Mr. Tucker wanted very much to attend, however, because he thought that doing so
would increase his chances of being selected as a ship's purser.  Upon reconsideration, the
placement officer found that there was a vacancy in the class.  She and Mr. Tucker agreed
on the conditions of his attendance: MSFSC would permit him to attend the class without
charge, but consistent with the agency's general policy for employees for whom a training
assignment is not essential, he would have to pay for his travel and other costs related to the
course.  Mr. Tucker acknowledges that he was not pleased with this arrangement, but that he
did agree to it.  In July 2004, Mr. Tucker attended the class in question.

     Mr. Tucker maintains that MSFSC's determination not to reimburse him for the costs
of travel to and from the course was unfair because he has a certificate of registry as a Chief
Purser and the agency has paid for such costs incurred by individuals who had lesser
qualifications.  He also tells us, perhaps contradictorily to the statement as to the certificate
of registry, that he was assigned purser-related duties during March and April of 2002 and
was a purser trainee from January to May 2006.

                            Discussion

     MSFSC calls to our attention as particularly relevant to this case a decision by our
predecessor in settling claims by federal civilian employees involving claims involving travel
expenses, the General Accounting Office (GAO).  In that decision, Donald F. X. McIntyre,
B-192636 (Dec. 15, 1978), GAO explained that "[t]here are situations in which an employee
may be authorized to travel at his own expense when the travel involves work or training of
mutual interest to the employee and the Government."  (The specific circumstance in the
McIntyre case was that the agency had no travel funds due to budgetary restrictions.)  When
this occurs, the rights and responsibilities of the agency and the employee become fixed;
there is no error in the travel orders (or absence thereof), so no change to the arrangement
may be made later.

     GAO's decision in McIntyre is not only relevant to Mr. Tucker's claim, but also
consistent with provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation which say that an agency may
pay "only those expenses essential to the transaction of official business" and that an
employee may agree not to be paid expenses he incurs in traveling to a training event. See
41 CFR 301-2.2, -11.3(a) (2004).  The decision is persuasive, so we will apply it.  MSFSC
reasonably determined that because the course in question is for department heads or
individuals about to assume such duties, and Mr. Tucker is an able seaman, consistent with
general agency policy, it could not justify paying for him to attend the course.  The agency's
accommodation of Mr. Tucker's desires, by permitting his attendance, was agreed to by the
employee.  Having agreed to the arrangement without reservation, Mr. Tucker cannot
challenge it now.

     There is another longstanding rule that prevents Mr. Tucker from recovering travel
expenses incurred in connection with his attendance at the class.  If an employee's leave is
interrupted for the performance of work at a location different from his place of leave, the
critical factor in determining who is responsible for the expenses of travel from the leave
location to the duty location and back is whether the agency directs the employee to perform
the work.  If the employee elects of his own volition to perform the work, he is responsible
for his travel expenses.  This rule was established long ago by the Comptroller General, our
predecessor in settling claims by federal civilian employees for expenses of official travel
and transportation, and we adopted it in Larry E. Johnson, GSBCA 16774-TRAV (July 18,
2006) (citing Paul P. Magallanes, B-190646 (Jan. 25, 1978)); see also J. C. Morris,
B-242804 (June 3, 1991).

     In this case, it is clear that MSFSC did not direct Mr. Tucker to interrupt his leave to
attend the course in question.  To the contrary, the agency reasonably determined that
because the course is for department heads or individuals about to assume such duties, and
Mr. Tucker is an able seaman, consistent with general agency policy, it could not justify
paying for him to attend.  The employee himself insisted on attending the course.  MSFSC's
ultimate accommodation of Mr. Tucker's desires by permitting his attendance does not
transfer to the agency the responsibility for paying for the expenses he incurred in traveling
to the location where the course was given.

                             Decision

     The claim is denied.





                                   _________________________ 
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge