________________________________________

                       September 19, 1996
            ________________________________________


                        GSBCA 13702-TRAV


               In the Matter of RONALD H. MILLIGAN


     Ronald H. Milligan, Tulsa, OK, Claimant.

     Steve Goldberg, Chief, Office of Travel Management &
Relocation, Washington, DC, appearing for Internal Revenue Service,
Department of the Treasury.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Mr. Ronald H. Milligan is a revenue agent with the Internal
Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He
seeks reimbursement of expenses for use of his privately owned
vehicle (POV) between his residence and an audit site.  Mr.
Milligan took these trips between March 3 and May 6, 1994, and
between May 12 and September 19, 1994.  The agency denied
reimbursement because the travel was not authorized.   Mr. Milligan
then filed a travel claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO). 
The Board determines that the claim lacks merit and that Mr.
Milligan is not entitled to reimbursement for the use of his car on
those dates.  

     Mr. Milligan's residence is in Okmulgee, Oklahoma.  He was
assigned to perform an audit at a site about one and one-half miles
from his official duty station.  Mr. Milligan concluded that it
would be most advantageous for the Government if he drove from his
home to the audit site in his POV, rather than commute to the
office and then take passenger carrier transportation from his
office to the audit site.  From March 3 to May 6, 1994, Mr.
Milligan used his POV to drive to the audit site without obtaining
a travel authorization from his supervisor, Mr. Charles Stamphill. 
    

     Mr. Stamphill learned of Mr. Milligan's practice and, on  May
6, 1994, directed Mr. Milligan to report to his office, and then
proceed from his office to the audit site.  Mr. Stamphill concluded
use of that route would be less expensive for the Government. 
Despite Mr. Stamphill's instructions to the contrary, from May 12
to September 19, 1994, Mr. Milligan used his POV to drive from his
home to the audit site.   

     Mr. Milligan seeks reimbursement for use of his POV commute to
the audit site between March 3 and May 6, 1994, totaling $248.25,
and that same commute between May 12 and September 19, 1994,
totaling $512.25.  Mr. Milligan urges that Mr. Stamphill's cost
analysis was based on an erroneous assumption--that Mr. Milligan
would use his car between his office and the audit site.  Mr.
Milligan notes that he cannot be compelled to supply his car for
official travel. The proper cost comparison, he maintains, should
have been between the cost of his POV from home to the audit site
and the cost of passenger carrier transportation from the office to
the audit site, factoring in the salary cost for the time he would
have spent using passenger carrier transportation.  Based on that
analysis, according to Mr. Milligan, his use of his POV from his
home to the audit site was clearly cost-efficient and thus most
advantageous to the Government.  The agency denied Mr. Milligan's
claim because his travel was not authorized by his supervisor.   

     Mr. Milligan's cost analysis may have been correct, but his
argument is for naught.  Mr. Milligan forgets the first requirement
for reimbursement of employee travel expenses--that the travel be
authorized by an appropriate Government official.  In this regard,
the Federal Travel Regulation provides that, except as otherwise
provided by law, "all travel shall be either authorized or approved
by the head of the agency or by an official to whom such authority
has been delegated."  41 CFR 301-1.101(b) (1994).   An employee is
entitled to a mileage reimbursement for the employee's car at a
specified rate "when use of a privately owned conveyance is
authorized or approved as advantageous to the Government for the
performance of official travel."  41 CFR 301-4.2(a) (1994).  "Ay,
there's the rub" in Mr. Milligan's argument.  William Shakespeare,
Hamlet act III, sc. 1, ln. 65 (Alexander ed., Collins 1975). 
Claims for unauthorized--either in advance or after-the-fact--
travel cannot be settled in favor of the claimant.  Gene Daly,
B-197386 (June 15, 1983).  Mr. Milligan has not shown that use of
his POV was approved in advance or after-the-fact.  Indeed, his
travel by POV to the audit site between May 12 and September 19,
1994, was in defiance of the supervisor's instructions.    
 
     The Board settles this claim by determining that Mr. Milligan 
is not entitled to reimbursement for the travel at issue.  



                              _________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge