Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 July 28, 1998 GSBCA 14486-TRAV In the Matter of ANDREW R. MILLER Andrew R. Miller, Washington, DC, Claimant. Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). The Department of the Navy sent one of its civilian lawyers, Andrew R. Miller, to a two-week training session in Charlottesville, Virginia, during March 1997. The agency denied two elements of the employee's request for reimbursement of expenses he incurred while on this trip -- insurance for the automobile he rented as a means of transportation and telephone calls he made to his wife at their home in Washington, D.C., to inquire as to her well-being. Mr. Miller claims that he is entitled to reimbursement. Under governing regulations, the agency's position on the automobile insurance is correct, but its consideration of payment for the telephone calls is incomplete. As to automobile insurance, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which applies to all civilian employees of Government agencies, provides: "Agencies may not pay or reimburse the employee for the cost of collision damage waiver or collision damage insurance when official travel is performed wholly within the . . . United States [or other specified locations]." 41 CFR 301-3.2(c)(1) (1996). Additionally, "The cost of personal accident insurance is a personal expense and is not reimbursable." Id. 301-3.2(c)(3). The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which implement and supplement the FTR with application to Department of Defense (DoD) civilian employees, are to like effect. JTR C2102-D.1, .4 (Jan. 1, 1996). [Foot # 1 ] If as Mr. Miller contends, he expected to be reimbursed for the expense of the insurance because his superior and a cognizant travel official approved the purchase, this is unfortunate but does not permit his recovery of the cost. A Government official may not authorize spending money in violation of statute or regulation. Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)). ****************** Footnote Begin ********** [Foot # 1 ] The JTR has been amended since the date of Mr. Miller's trip to allow travelers to recover the cost of buying automobile insurance when renting a vehicle within the United States in limited circumstances -- where "[a] Secretarial Process authorizes/approves reimbursement of non-required insurance for certain classified special operations." JTR C2102-D.1.b (July 1, 1997). ****************** Footnote End ************ As to the telephone calls, the FTR provides that "[a]uthorization or approval of employees' use of the Government telephone systems (including calls over commercial systems which will be paid for by the Government) shall be in accordance with agency directives issued pursuant to the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR), 41 CFR 101-35.201." 41 CFR 301-6.4(c) (as amended per 61 Fed.Reg. 67951 (1996)). The relevant DoD directive in effect at the time of Mr. Miller's trip to Charlottesville was the Joint Ethics Regulation, DOD 5500.7-R, 2.301 (Mar. 25, 1996). [Foot # 2 ] This regulation authorizes the use of commercial communications systems "for official use and authorized purposes only." "Authorized purposes include brief communications made by DoD employees while they are traveling on Government business to notify family members of official transportation or schedule changes." Id. 2-301.a(2). "Official use" includes "communications that the DoD Component determines are necessary in the interest of the Federal Government." Id. 2.301.a(1). The JTR amplifies the definition of "official use" by providing that an authorizing official "may consider certain phone calls to the traveler's home or family while on the trip as official if the [authorizing official] considers the calls to be in the Government's's interest. If such calls are considered in the Government's interest, the [authorizing official] establishes the reimbursement ceiling for the calls." JTR app. O, T4040-A.4.b. ****************** Footnote Begin ********** [Foot # 2 ] Mr. Miller cites Federal Information Resources Management Regulation (FIRMR) Bulletin C-13 as controlling authority. This bulletin, which was issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), listed as an example of "official business calls" "a brief call home but not more than an average of one call per day" by an employee traveling within the United States on Government business. The FIRMR was repealed on August 8, 1996, however, so it was no longer in effect when Mr. Miller went to Charlottesville. See Eduardo Soto, GSBCA 13647-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,948. Although GSA continues to apply this policy to travel by its own employees, PFM P 4290.1 CHGE 21, ch. 5, 4.d (Nov. 24, 1993), it does not impose the policy on other agencies through the FTR. ****************** Footnote End ************ The Navy declined to reimburse Mr. Miller for the cost of his telephone calls to his wife because it believed that the calls were not made for business purposes and therefore were not "official communications." This determination was based on an improperly narrow view of DoD rules regarding telephone use. Under applicable regulations, if any of the calls had been to notify Mr. Miller's wife of official transportation or schedule changes, it would have been for an authorized purpose, and, if it had been brief, reimbursement to the employee of the cost he incurred in making the call would have been required. Because Mr. Miller states that the calls he made were for a different purpose -- to inquire about his wife's well-being -- reimbursement is not mandated, but it is permissible. If the authorizing official -- "the individual who controls the mission, authorizes the trip, and controls funds for [temporary duty] travel," JTR app. O, T4000 -- determines that the calls were in the Government's interest, the calls will by definition have been for "official use," even though they may not have been for what may be considered to be a business purpose. We direct the official who authorized Mr. Miller's trip, or that official's designee, to consider in light of this advice whether the employee's telephone calls to his wife were in the interest of the Government. If that official concludes that they were, the agency must pay for the reasonable cost of the calls. The official should additionally establish a reimbursement ceiling for the calls, however; any expense above that ceiling will be considered to have been incurred for personal reasons and must be borne by Mr. Miller. Decision Mr. Miller is not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the automobile insurance he purchased in conjunction with his rental of a car for his trip to Charlottesville. He may be reimbursed for the cost of telephone calls he made to his wife while on temporary duty, but only if his authorizing official determines that the calls were in the Government's interest, and then, only to the extent the cost falls under the ceiling established by that official. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge