____________________________

                            September 30, 1997
                       ____________________________


                             GSBCA 13791-TRAV


                    In the Matter of GERALD A. SHERMAN


     Gerald A. Sherman, Raleigh, NC, Claimant.

     G. A. Terrill and Charles A. Hurst, Travel Division, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for
Department of the Navy.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     At issue in this case is $288 in per diem expenses
representing claimant's alleged cost of meals during a temporary
duty assignment from June 6, 1995, to June 12, 1995.  The Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus Center, denied
reimbursement, and claimant filed a claim with the General
Accounting Office (GAO) on July 8, 1996.

                                Background

     Claimant is an electronics engineer employed by the Marine
Geosciences Division, Naval Oceanographic Office, Department of the
Navy, in Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, which is located
approximately sixty-three miles from his home in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  On June 2, 1995, claimant was issued a travel
authorization for temporary duty for ten days in Belle Chase,
Louisiana, a location which is closer to his home than is his
permanent duty station -- only fourteen miles away compared with
the sixty-three miles he typically commuted.  Total per diem
expenses estimated to be $930 were authorized, and claimant
received an advance in the amount of $288.  Claimant engaged in a
research field operation under this temporary duty assignment from
June 6, 1995, to June 12, 1995, in Belle Chase.  During this
period, claimant lodged and took his meals with his colleagues near
the temporary duty station.

     Prior to this temporary duty assignment, claimant inquired as
to whether per diem would be covered, due to the close proximity of
the research operation to his home.  He called the Disbursing
Officer, Naval Oceanographic Office, but did not receive a call
back.  Claimant incurred lodging expenses of $401.93 for seven
nights.  According to claimant's travel voucher, claimant's meals
and incidental expenses (M&IE) totaled $246.50 for this time period
based upon an M&IE rate of $34 per day.

     Upon his return claimant submitted a travel voucher to the
Disbursing Officer, Naval Oceanographic Office, seeking
reimbursement of $649.23 minus his advance of $288 for a total of
$361.23.  Claimant was then informed that lodging expenses would
not be covered; however, he was told by the Disbursing Officer to
re-submit the voucher with a justification letter from his
department.  By memorandum dated July 26, 1995, the Associate
Superintendent, Marine Geosciences Division, advised the Disbursing
Officer as follows:

     During the period from 6 June 95 through 12 June 95, NRL
     was conducting a field operation from Belle Chase Naval
     Air Station (NAS).  The mission required a strong team
     effort during the very long (16-18 Hour) work days.  The
     team was composed of several engineers and technicians
     that worked together for successful AEM system
     deployments.  It was more efficient for the operation to
     have all team members including Mr. Sherman stay at the
     same hotel and transit to and from the NAS as a group. 
     This insured that all team members were on duty when
     required during an erratic operational schedule that
     ranged from 600 hours to as late as 2300 hours.  The
     critical need for all field team members to be present
     over extreme hours and under a highly variable work
     schedule required that all members of the field crew be
     housed in the same hotel in Gretna LA.  Therefore,
     Mr. Sherman should receive Per Diem for the period of
     this mission covered under reference (a).


By letter dated May 16, 1996, claimant did not challenge nonpayment
of the lodging cost but sought reimbursement for his meal expenses
which he claims total $288.  Because claimant received an advance
in that amount, he seeks to keep the $288 advance and not repay it,
as the agency has requested.

                                Discussion

     Statute authorizes a per diem allowance for government
employees "when travelling on official business away from the
employee's designated post of duty, or away from the employee's
home."  5 U.S.C.  5702 (1994). 

     Further, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which implements
this statute, provides:

     301-7.5  General rules affecting entitlement to per diem.

          (a)  No allowance at official station.  A per diem
     allowance shall not be allowed within the limits of the
     official station (see definition in  301-1.3(c)(4)) or
     at, or within the vicinity of, the place of abode (home)
     from which the employee commutes daily to the official
     station. . . .

     The Defense Finance and Accounting Service noted that
claimant's temporary duty station was only fourteen miles from his
residence, whereas his permanent duty station is sixty-three miles
from his residence.  Although the term "vicinity" is not defined in
the applicable statute or regulations, we accord the word its
ordinary meaning.  E.g., NSK Ltd. v. United States 115 F.3d 965,
974 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Black s Law Dictionary defines vicinity as:
 the quality or state of being near, or not remote; nearness;
propinquity; proximity; a region about, near or adjacent; adjoining
space or country.   Black's Law Dictionary 1405 (5th ed. 1979).
Similarly, Webster's Dictionary defines the term vicinity as:   the
quality or state of being near... surrounding area or district;
locality .  Webster's Dictionary 2550 (3rd ed. 1986).  Applying
these definitions, the Board concludes that a temporary duty
station fourteen miles from the employee's abode can reasonably be
deemed "in the vicinity" of his abode -- especially when his
permanent duty station to which he regularly commutes is sixty-
three miles from his home.  We recognize that the Comptroller
General, in Gregg Snyder, B-252836 (Aug. 4, 1993), was not prepared
to conclude that a TDY station located forty-four miles away from
an employee's residence was "categorically within the vicinity of"
his abode, when the employee normally commuted twenty-three miles. 
Our decision today is consistent with Snyder since a distance of
only fourteen miles -- some thirty miles less -- can reasonably be
considered in the vicinity of his home.  Thus, because claimant's
place of abode was "within the vicinity of" and "not away from" his
temporary duty station, the agency properly denied per diem
expenses.

     Claimant contends that the nature of the work and the long
hours the effort involved warranted reimbursement for at least the
meal expenses incurred during his assignment to temporary duty.
While the effort may have been substantial and the hours long,
neither applicable regulations nor persuasive decisions of the
Comptroller General support reimbursement in this instance. 
William Perkette, 71 Comp. Gen. 517 (1992); Philip Rabin, 64 Comp.
Gen. 70 (1984).  If reimbursement may be had, the authority for it
must be found outside the FTR.

                                 Decision

     The claim is denied.



                                   __________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge