_____________

                               April 9, 1997
                               _____________


                             GSBCA 13684-TRAV


                       In the Matter of MARK CHAPMAN


    Mark Chapman, Santee, CA, Claimant.

    Judy Hughes, Defense Finance and Accounting Service Columbus
Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

    The claimant, Mr. Mark Chapman, a civilian employee of the
Department of Defense, was on a temporary duty (TDY) assignment,
involving travel from California to Patuxent River, Maryland. 
Prior to his travel, he was informed that he could stay the first
night in Washington, DC, and proceed to Patuxent the next morning. 
Also, he was informed that, with his assignment concluding on a
Friday afternoon, he could spend Saturday and Sunday nights in
Washington, and return during normal work hours on Monday.  Mr.
Chapman acted accordingly.  The agency has denied reimbursement for
the first night at the higher per diem rate of Washington, and
limited the amount to the Patuxent rate.  The agency has also
denied reimbursement for both the last two nights in Washington. 
The agency has acted within the regulation; Mr. Chapman is entitled
to no further compensation.

    On June 20, 1995, Mr. Chapman departed home at 5:45 am (all
times are local) and flew from San Diego to Washington, DC
(National Airport), where he rented a car at approximately 5:45 pm. 
He did not proceed to Patuxent River, approximately sixty-five
miles away, but went into downtown Washington, DC, to stay in a
hotel, where he checked in at approximately 6:35.  He departed the
next day, arriving for work at approximately 10:00 am.  He claims
reimbursement at the Washington, DC, per diem rate of $152.  The
agency has allowed only the Patuxent River per diem of $77, because
it concluded that there was no justification to remain in the
Washington, DC area.

    His assignment ended on Friday, June 23, at approximately 3:00
pm.  He remained in Maryland, checking out of his hotel at
approximately 10:00 am, Saturday, June 24.  He stayed two nights in
the Washington, DC area, spending $71.28 for lodging Saturday
night, and $114.14 for Sunday night.  On Monday, June 26, he flew
to California.
    The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) specify: "It is presumed
the employee will obtain lodging at the TDY [temporary duty]
location.  However, if the employee obtains lodging away from or
outside the TDY because of personal preference or convenience, the
allowable per diem shall be limited to the maximum per diem rate
prescribed for the TDY location."  JTR 4555-A.1.  The regulations
also specify that an employee "will exercise the same care in
incurring expenses and accomplishing a mission that a prudent
person would exercise if traveling on personal business.  [D]elays
. . . are not considered acceptable as exercising prudence. 
Employees will be responsible for excess costs and any additional
expenses incurred for personal preference or convenience."  JTR
C1058-A.

    Mr. Chapman explains his stay in Washington: "Due to the late
arrival, traffic and tired from the long flight."  The commanding
officer at the Naval Aviation Depot (Mr. Chapman's permanent duty
station) specifies in a letter that Mr. Chapman was informed that,
because his trip was considered an administratively controlled
activity, the employee could be paid for travel during regular work
hours only.  Further,

    It is the Command responsibility to pay an employee for
    hours of work.  Since the Command could not pay the
    employee for travel outside of his regular shift hours
    and the trip required more than eight hours of travel
    each way, the employee was inform[ed] by management that
    a stay over in Washington, both going and returning, was
    proper.

    Mr. Mark Chapman's travel stops in Washington were not
    for the personal convenience of the traveler, but to
    ensure proper payment of an employee.

An "internal review officer," with authority unspecified in the
materials submitted to the Board, had provided Mr. Chapman with the
advice that he could stay in Washington, DC.

    The regulations do not entitle Mr. Chapman to reimbursement
for the initial rest-stop in Washington, DC at the Washington
rates.  Mr. Chapman's statement indicates that for reasons of his
own personal convenience he did not proceed to Patuxent--he was
tired, there was traffic, and he had completed a long flight.  The
statement of the commanding officer is to the contrary; he
justifies the delay based upon a desire to ensure proper payment. 
However, the determination was not made consistent with regulation
which limits reimbursement.

    The submissions establish that Mr. Chapman delayed his trip to
Patuxent for reasons of personal convenience.  Rather than proceed
to or towards the TDY station, he headed in another direction.  No
appropriate reason has been established which would compel extra
compensation for the delay; the delay was for the convenience of
the traveller, not the benefit of the agency.  The agency has acted
within the regulations in concluding that the delay was not
acceptable for purposes of reimbursing at the higher rate for
Washington, DC.

    The JTR addresses the return situation when the employee
delays return from a Friday to a Monday in order to travel during
regulation duty hours on Monday: "payment of per diem will be
limited to that which would have been payable if he/she had begun
the return travel following the completion of work on Friday and
continued to the destination without delay."  JTR 1058-B.3.  The
agency has reimbursed Mr. Chapman for a constructive return on
Saturday (including payment for the Friday night stay at Patuxent)
while disallowing reimbursement for Saturday night and Sunday in
Washington.  The determination is in accordance with the
regulation.

    
                                    ____________________________
                                         JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                         Board Judge