June 11, 1997 GSBCA 13691-TRAV In the Matter of PHYLLIS G. THOMPSON Phyllis G. Thompson, Annapolis, MD, Claimant. James J. Lucas, Chief, Policy and Standards Branch, Financial Policy Division, Office of Financial Management, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, appearing for Federal Emergency Management Agency. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Phyllis G. Thompson, an employee of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), traveled on official business during July 1995. Ms. Thompson's permanent duty station was in Washington, D.C.; her business was in Knoxville, Tennessee, and Umatilla, Oregon. The agency has refused to reimburse her for three kinds of charges she incurred during this travel and listed on her voucher: part of the airfare; some of the cost of meals and lodging while in Umatilla; and expenses of renting a car in San Diego, California. We conclude that the disputed amount of airfare should be paid to the claimant, but that the agency acted properly as to the other expenses. Airfare Ms. Thompson was authorized to take two separate trips, one to Knoxville on Wednesday, July 5, through Friday, July 7, and another to Umatilla on Monday, July 10, through Wednesday, July 12. The claimant decided, on her own and for personal reasons, to travel to San Diego rather than returning home over the intervening weekend. Ms. Thompson contends that because the cost of airfare on the route she took was less than the cost the Government would have incurred if she had taken the originally- planned route, FEMA should reimburse her for the entire cost of her fare. The agency does not challenge her theory or object to her decision to change course, but it has denied some reimbursement because it believes her calculations are incorrect. The Federal Travel Regulation provides that "[w]hen a person for his/her own convenience travels by an indirect route or interrupts travel by direct route, the extra expense shall be borne by him/her." 41 CFR 301-2.5(b) (1995). FEMA authorized Ms. Thompson to travel on the following route, at the following costs: Baltimore, Maryland to Knoxville $ 182 Knoxville to Baltimore 182 Baltimore to Pasco, Washington (nearest airport to Umatilla); Pasco to Baltimore 754 Total $1,118 Ms. Thompson actually took the following route, at the following costs: Baltimore to Knoxville $ 182 Knoxville to San Diego; San Diego to Pasco; Pasco to Baltimore 855 Total $1,037 Her route, while perhaps no more indirect than the one the agency expected, constitutes the sort of travel that the cited regulatory provision covers. Clearly, the claimant spent less on airfare than the agency authorized. FEMA's understanding that she should be reimbursed only $936, rather than the $1,037 she spent, results from a simple error: in determining the cost of airfare on the trip authorized, the agency overlooked the fact that that route involved a return to Baltimore from Knoxville, at a cost of $182. Ms. Thompson should be reimbursed for the entire cost of her airfare. Lorrie L. Wood, GSBCA 13705-TRAV, 97-1 BCA  28,707 (1996). Per diem allowance The second item in dispute is the cost of meals and lodging during Ms. Thompson's stay in Umatilla. For each of these three days, Ms. Thompson sought $30 in reimbursement for meals and incidental expenses, and FEMA allowed only $26. For one of the nights, the claimant sought $49.59 for lodging and the agency allowed only $40. Reimbursement for meal and lodging costs incurred by Government employees while traveling on official business is generally paid through a "per diem allowance." 5 U.S.C.  5702(a)(1)(A) (1994); 41 CFR pt. 301-7. This allowance consists of "the actual amount the traveler pays for lodgings plus an allowance for meals and incidental expenses (M&IE), the total not to exceed the applicable maximum per diem rate for the location concerned." 41 CFR 301-7.6. Maximum per diem rates for locations within the continental United States are prescribed by the Administrator of General Services. For all locations not specifically listed, the standard maximum per diem rate must be used. Id. 301-7.6(a)(1). During the time of Ms. Thompson's travel, the Administrator had not prescribed a rate for Umatilla. Id. ch. 301 App. Therefore, the standard daily rate -- $40 maximum for lodging and $26 for meals and incidental expenses -- is all that Ms. Thompson should have received during her stay in that city. Rental car While Ms. Thompson was in San Diego, on the weekend between her two tours of temporary duty, she rented a car at a cost of $28.89. She was not authorized to take this action, and the action was not approved afterwards -- nor should it have been, since the stay in San Diego was not "necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Government." 41 CFR 301-1.101(a). The General Accounting Office (GAO) considered on several occasions cases in which an employee, by extending on his or her own time a trip taken for business purposes, was able to save the Government transportation costs. In each of these cases, GAO held that the employee could be reimbursed (at per diem rates or actual expenses) for the costs he incurred for meals and lodging while extending the trip. The reason was that the incurrence of these costs was necessary to save the Government money (and the employee's recovery was limited to the amount of savings). E.g., Vincent L. DiMare, B-212087 (Feb. 7, 1984); Charles W. Miller, 60 Comp. Gen. 295 (1981); Lawrence B. Perkins, B-192364 (Feb. 15, 1979). We do not decide here whether to follow this line of decisions. Even if we were to follow it, however, that would not help Ms. Thompson. Her rental of the car did not contribute to Government savings; it was clearly for her personal benefit alone. The agency acted properly in not reimbursing her for this cost. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge