Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________________________ February 19, 1999 ______________________________________ GSBCA 14568-TRAV In the Matter of CHARLES M. FERGUSON Charles M. Ferguson, Valdosta, GA, Claimant. Brig. Gen. David S. Sibley, Assistant Vice Commander, and Philip D. Donohoe, Director of General Law, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, GA, appearing for Department of the Air Force. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, a military reservist and a civilian employee with the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), seeks reimbursement for the cost of a rental car and a portion of a commercial airline ticket incurred in conjunction with a temporary duty (TDY) assignment. In addition, claimant seeks lost salary due to a suspension imposed upon him related to this travel, review of the suspension decision, a declaration that his use of travel orders was not fraudulent, and correction of his civil service record expunging these purported travel violations. Because the agency had not determined that the use of a rental car would be advantageous to the Government and travel on a commercial carrier at Government expense was not authorized, we sustain the agency's action in denying reimbursement of these expenses. We dismiss the other aspects of the claim because the Board lacks jurisdiction over them. Background Claimant, a colonel in the Air Force Reserves and a civilian executive officer, Director of Special Projects, with Headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), at Robins Air Force Base (AFB) in Georgia, was authorized to attend a Senior Leaders' Conference (SLC) at Offutt AFB, Nebraska, from July 21 through 24, 1996. Prior to the SLC, all attendees, including Dr. Ferguson, were repeatedly informed that rental cars would not be needed or authorized because Government transportation would be provided. In addition, attendees were advised that military aircraft rather than commercial airline transportation would be provided for the round trip between the AFRC in Georgia and Offutt AFB. Dr. Ferguson had planned a TDY trip to Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, just prior to the SLC. To avoid having to return to AFRC Headquarters in Georgia and then travel to and from the conference on military aircraft, Dr. Ferguson sought and obtained travel orders routing him from Fort Sam Houston to Nebraska and then back to Georgia utilizing a commercial air carrier at Government expense. Claimant's travel orders also authorized a rental car, stating: "Special authority for the hire of special conveyances required for mission accomplishment. The cost of this special authority has been reviewed and is justified as more advantageous to the Government or necessary for mission accomplishment." Claimant himself prepared the written justification for his travel request. At the time claimant sought the travel orders, his first- and second-level immediate supervisors were out of town. A general, who was not claimant s immediate supervisor, was the acting approving official. This official signed claimant's travel orders relying upon Dr. Ferguson's seniority, grade level, and rank as representing that the requested orders were proper, and did not himself independently determine that a rental car or commercial air travel was warranted. Although Government-provided transportation was available for attendees and their spouses and most other attendees used the Government-provided transportation for all of the events, Dr. Ferguson had a rental car, which in the view of his superiors caused consternation among other attendees.[foot #] 1 Dr. Ferguson claims that his return trip and the rental car were supported by his need to interview Colonel Gunn for the position of Chief of the Military Liaison Team for the Polish Ministry of Defense. He says he needed the rental car to give him the flexibility to interview Colonel Gunn, who had a very unpredictable schedule, precluding a set interview time. Colonel Gunn had been moved off base from Offutt AFB to a commercial hotel downtown and was off base during Dr. Ferguson's entire visit, making it difficult for them to get together. Dr. Ferguson also used the commercial airline ticket to fly back to Georgia even though the prearranged military aircraft was available. Although the military flight left within one hour of the commercial flight, claimant returned on the same commercial flight with his wife, using the Government-procured airline ticket he had acquired based upon his orders. Claimant's ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Dr. Ferguson suggests that two other reserve colonels also had rental cars, but there is no evidence as to their specific missions or whether the cars were paid for by the Government. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- position description states that he could be required to travel by military air. Claimant says that he has flown on military aircraft many times and had intended all along to return by military air, but changed his mind at the last minute. Claimant decided to fly commercially to have several more hours to work with . . . an Air National Guardsman and private consultant . . . to secure his commitment for conducting Safety Culture Workshops and to obtain materials with no costs to the agency. In claimant s view, the value of these materials far exceeded the cost of one leg of an airline ticket. However, ultimately neither claimant's supervisor nor the major general who reviewed claimant's grievance found that his travel had saved the Government money. Claimant filed his travel voucher and was reimbursed for the cost of the rental car. However, Dr. Ferguson was subsequently disciplined for his actions in obtaining the rental car and utilizing the commercial airline and was ordered to repay both the cost of the rental car and the return trip on the commercial air carrier, totaling $296.78. In addition, claimant's first- level supervisor imposed a thirty-day suspension based upon claimant's wanton disregard for directives and a fraudulent claim for a rental car and a commercial airline ticket. Claimant's suspension was reduced to a fourteen-day suspension. Dr. Ferguson filed a grievance regarding the suspension, but his grievance was denied, and after all reviews had been exhausted, his fourteen-day suspension became a permanent part of his civilian employee record. Discussion As a threshold matter, the Board dismisses for lack of jurisdiction claimant's claims seeking (1) review of his fourteen-day suspension, (2) payment of his wages during that suspension, (3) correction of his federal civilian employment records, and (4) a declaration that claimant's use of the travel orders was not fraudulent. Our statutory authority in the claims settlement area is limited to claims involving expenses incurred by federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation, and relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station. 31 U.S.C. 3702 (Supp. II 1996). The statutory authorization does not confer jurisdiction on the Board to review civilian disciplinary actions, to alter federal civilian personnel records, or to determine matters of fraud. See generally Richard E. Benson, GSBCA 14371-TRAV (Jan. 9, 1998) (as a general matter, Board lacks jurisdiction over employment disputes and lacks authority to direct a change in grade); Beverly J. Orr, GSBCA 13928-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,675 (Board lacks authority over claim for loss of annual salary and allowances);[foot #] 2 Thomas A. Linster, GSBCA 14669-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,056 (Board lacks authority to resolve whether a claimant could be reimbursed for Federal Insurance Contributions Act costs and "it is not for this Board to determine the appropriate forum for the resolution of this matter"). Although the agency suggested that the Board might as a discretionary matter also dismiss the remainder of claimant's claims on the ground that they are inextricably connected to findings of improper behavior on claimant's part and disciplinary judgments made by claimant's supervisor, we decline to do so. It is appropriate for the Board only to address the discrete travel claims raised by claimant which fall within our jurisdiction.[foot #] 3 The Rental Car Applicable regulations provide that official business travel will be by the method of transportation which will result in the greatest advantage to the Government. 41 CFR 302-2.2(b) (1996). A rental car may only be used when it is determined that an automobile is required for official business. 41 CFR 301-2.2(d)(2). Further, the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), JTR C2001-A, specify that use of a rental car may be authorized or approved only when it is determined that the use of other means of transportation is not advantageous to the Government. In the instant case, the weight of the evidence establishes that the use of a rental car was not advantageous to the Government, and in fact was not necessary for claimant at all because Government- furnished transportation was available for all attendees during the SLC. Claimant's assertion that the rental vehicle was necessary so that he could meet with Colonel Gunn is not persuasive. Although the agency does not dispute that claimant met with Colonel Gunn as part of his official duties, claimant has not established that there was no alternative transportation available. The facts that Colonel Gunn was located off base and ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 As we recognized in Orr, the authority previously ___ exercised by the Comptroller General for claims involving compensation and leave of federal employees is now vested by statute in the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). [foot #] 3 The agency also notes that the Board is without jurisdiction to review and determine the validity of an order given to claimant by his supervisor to repay a debt the supervisor found was owed to the Government. The Board is not reviewing the validity of the order, but is settling claimant's claim for reimbursement of a rental car and a commercial flight in conjunction with a temporary duty assignment. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- had a busy schedule do not establish that a rental car was necessary. Commercial Aircraft Nor is claimant entitled to be reimbursed for his return trip from the SLC to Georgia. It is well established that in order for the Government to pay an employee s travel expenses, such expenses must be essential to the transaction of official business. 41 CFR 301-2.2 (agency may pay only those expenses essential to the transaction of official business); JTR C1050-A (travel and transportation at Government expense is directed only when officially justified and by those means which meet mission requirements consistent with good management practices); Antonio G. Gonzalez, GSBCA 14292-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,418. Here, claimant has not established that his return via commercial air carrier was essential to the performance of official business. Rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that claimant could have returned on a military airlift and accomplished the mission. Moreover, it is fundamental that a federal civilian employee traveling on official business shall exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business. See 41 CFR 301-2.3; JTR C1058-A. The agency has persuasively demonstrated that there was no mission-related requirement for claimant to return to Georgia at extra expense on a commercial airline. All other attendees at the SLC returned via military aircraft. A prudent traveler would have taken the military airlift and not incurred the expense of a commercial flight. Dr. Ferguson argued that it was inappropriate for the Air Force to force him, as a civilian, to ride on a military aircraft, pointing out that JTR C2001 sets forth only four situations in which a civilian can be forced to ride military aircraft: (1) if he is an air crew member, (2) if he is a maintenance technician performing duties while in flight, (3) if the flight is essential to the mission, or (4) if the flight is for evacuation by air for medical reasons. Claimant cannot invoke this regulation to force the Government to reimburse him for a commercial flight his supervisors did not authorize and did not deem essential to official business. This regulation does not address reimbursement for official travel and is inapplicable to claimant here. While technically in civilian status at the time of this travel, claimant was also a colonel in the Air Force Reserves, an officer with some thirty-three years of service, who traveled via military aircraft on many occasions and whose position description expressly provided that he could be required to fly on a military aircraft. Based upon all of the circumstances in this case, we decline to apply JTR C2001 to require the agency to reimburse Dr. Ferguson for flying on a commercial aircraft when a military aircraft was available and he had consented to travel via military aircraft by virtue of his position description. See Thomas L. Spicer, B-154190 (July 23, 1969) (Air Force civilian employee who was directed to travel via military aircraft could not be reimbursed for using privately owned vehicle). Erroneous Travel Orders Claimant contends that he is entitled to reimbursement based upon his travel orders. However, we conclude that these travel orders, although duly signed and approved, were issued based upon mistaken assumptions and were erroneous. It is up to claimant's superiors, not claimant himself, to determine that the use of a rental car was advantageous to the Government, and that commercial air travel was essential for the conduct of official business. Here, no such independent determination was made by the official who approved claimant's travel orders. Rather, that official simply accepted the travel orders as prepared based upon claimant's rank and position. It is well established that erroneous travel orders do not obligate the Government to expend monies contrary to regulation. Under the circumstances, the Government is not obligated to reimburse claimant for expenses which were not properly authorized in the first place. See Marlene Daniels, GSBCA 14407-TRAV (Nov. 24, 1998) (a travel authorization which claimant herself prepared and which her supervisor signed but did not independently review does not entitle claimant to a higher reimbursement). In a similar case, we recognized that travel orders which authorized the use of a rental car were erroneous when the facts established that the use of a rental car was not advantageous to the Government. Alice P. Pfefferkorn, GSBCA 141247-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,313. In sum, the agency properly denied claimant's request for reimbursement of the cost of the rental car and the commercial air flight. Decision Claimant's requests for wages, a review of his suspension decision, alteration of his personnel record, and a declaration that his use of travel orders was not fraudulent are dismissed. Claimant's requests that he be reimbursed for his rental car and commercial air transportation are denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge