________________________

                             January 13, 1997
                         _________________________


                             GSBCA 13688-TRAV


                      In the Matter of C. RAY TAYLOR


     C. Ray Taylor, Ridgecrest, CA, Claimant.

     G.A. Terrill, Chief, Travel Division, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for
Department of Defense.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     C. Ray Taylor, an employee of the Department of Defense (DOD),
was issued temporary duty orders to travel from China Lake,
California to Washington, D.C.  His airline tickets, which cost
$424, were issued by Sato Travel, a travel agency under contract
with the Government.  Before leaving for Washington, Mr. Taylor
decided to arrange to stop in Oklahoma to conduct some personal
business on his way back from Washington.  He contacted Sato, which
told him that a ticket which would permit him stop in Oklahoma on
his way back from Washington would cost over $1,000.  After a great
deal of effort, Mr. Taylor was able to secure a ticket from a
different travel agency for $726.

     Mr. Taylor claimed reimbursement of $424 -- the cost of his
original round-trip ticket from China Lake to Washington.  The
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) denied the claim
because, in its opinion, Mr. Taylor had not shown, as required by
the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), that he had no alternative to
using a  travel agency other than the one under contract to the
Government.  When Mr. Taylor requested reconsideration of that
decision, DFAS forwarded the claim to the General Accounting Office
for review.

                                Discussion

     Under the Federal Travel Regulation, the primary regulatory
authority for federal civilian travel, an employee may, for his own
convenience, use an indirect or interrupted travel route.  If he
does, however:

          the extra expense shall be borne by him/her. 
          Reimbursement for expenses shall be based only
          on such charges as would have been incurred by
          a usually traveled route.

41 CFR 301-2.5(b) (1995).  Thus, Mr. Taylor was permitted to stop
in Oklahoma on his way back from Washington, as long as he bears
the extra expense.

     The FTR also provides that:

          The services of a travel agent may not be used
          by executive agencies except:

          (1) Through a TMC [Travel Management Center]
          under contract to GSA;

          (2) Through delegation of authority, obtained
          from GSA where warranted; or

          (3) By exception as provided in  301-3.4(b).

41 CFR 301-15.3(b).  The exception referred to above permits the
use of travel agents for certain special fares and further provides
as follows:

          The infrequent traveler, unaware of the
          general prohibition against the use of travel
          agents, who inadvertently purchases
          transportation with personal funds from a
          travel agent without the required advance
          administrative approval, may be granted an
          exception to the preclusive provisions on a
          one-time basis and may be paid for the travel
          costs incurred not to exceed the cost which
          would have been properly chargeable to the
          Government if the transportation service had
          been purchased directly from the carrier.  In
          such cases, the traveler will be advised that
          recurrence of such use of travel agents will
          result in denial of reimbursement unless it
          can be demonstrated that the traveler had no
          alternative.

41 CFR 301-3.4(b)(2)(ii).  Paragraph C2207 of the JTR, the
regulation which supplements the FTR for civilian employees of the
Department of Defense, similarly prohibits the use of non-contract
travel agents but, unlike the FTR, does not provide for a one-time
exception for infrequent travelers.  The regulation merely states
that reimbursement is not authorized unless it can be demonstrated
that the employee had "no alternative."

                                Discussion

     Mr. Taylor had "no alternative" to using a private travel
agent.  The regulations clearly authorize employees to take an
indirect route home.  This provision would be meaningless unless
the entity from which an employee is required to purchase his
ticket can procure one at a reasonable price.  If the Government's
contract travel agent cannot find a reasonably priced ticket which
will accommodate the employee's needs, the employee has no
reasonable alternative but to look elsewhere.  Here, the
Government's agent, Sato, was unable to find a ticket for Mr.
Taylor for under $1,000.  Under the circumstances, we think Mr.
Taylor was justified in purchasing the ticket from another agent
for $726.

     Even if Mr. Taylor had had an alternative to purchasing his
ticket from a non-Government contract travel agency, DFAS could
probably have granted him an exception.  The FTR authorizes the
agency to grant an exception to Mr. Taylor if he is an infrequent
traveler and if this is his "first offense."  Thus, if Mr. Taylor
met the criteria, DFAS could have granted him an exception.

                                 Decision

     The claim is GRANTED.  The agency shall reimburse Mr. Taylor
in the amount of $424.00.





                                   ____________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge