March 31, 1997
                                                  


                       GSBCA 13801-TRAV, 13805-TRAV


                    In the Matter of BENNY G. MITCHELL

                     In the Matter of RONALD L. PITTS


     Benny G. Mitchell, Anniston, AL, Claimant in GSBCA 13801-TRAV.

     Ronald L. Pitts, Anniston, AL, Claimant in GSBCA 13805-TRAV.

     R. D. Holmes, Chief, Resource Analysis Division, Anniston Army
Depot, Department of the Army, Anniston, AL, appearing for
Department of the Army.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Two civilian employees of the Anniston (Alabama) Army Depot
contest the Department of the Army's denial of their claim for
lodging expenses they incurred while on official travel.  We grant
their claims.

     Benny G. Mitchell, a maintenance management specialist, and
Ronald L. Pitts, a computer specialist, traveled from Anniston to
Corpus Christi, Texas, in February 1996 to participate in a
Standard Depot System/Maintenance Resource Planning meeting at the
Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).  Both men stayed initially in
bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) at the Corpus Christi Naval Air
Station, the facility at which CCAD is a tenant activity.  They
found that the BOQ was "in a rundown condition," however, and moved
their lodgings to a hotel in Corpus Christi for the last eight
nights of their trip.

     The rooms at the hotel cost $68 per night -- $544 for eight
nights.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Pitts each submitted a claim for $64
per night -- $512 for eight nights -- in lodging costs.  The Army
rejected these claims.

     The claimants and the agency agree that the principal legal
authority governing these claims is paragraph C1055-A of the Joint
Travel Regulations (JTR), rules which apply to official travel of
Department of Defense civilian employees.  This paragraph states:

     An employee may not be required to use Government
     quarters.  However, when adequate available Government
     quarters aren't used, an employee on temporary duty won't
     be reimbursed a lodging expense.

     There is no doubt that when Messrs. Mitchell and Pitts
traveled to Corpus Christi, Government quarters at the Naval Air
Station were available.  The question in this case is whether those
quarters were also adequate.

     The claimants are adamant in insisting that the quarters were
far from adequate.  In support of this contention, Mr. Mitchell
provided the following detailed assertions regarding the condition
of the BOQ.  He categorized the assertions in accordance with the
standards listed in Army Regulation 210-50, about which more will
be said later.

     a.   SAFE:

          (1)  No dead bolt or safety chain[] locks on the
     doors.

          (2)  Shower turned from normal to scalding hot
     without any warning.

     b.   SANITARY:

          (1)  My bed did not have a mattress pad and the
     linen was threadbare with a hole in the sheet and several
     holes in the pillow cases.

          (2)  Cockroach droppings around the [lavatory] and
     shower and I killed cockroaches in the [lavatory] and
     clothing locker.

     c.   HABITABLE ACCOMMODATIONS IN GOOD REPAIR:

          (1)  Bathroom and small hallway ceilings had extreme
     paint peeling and flaking.

          (2)  Overall maintenance and upkeep of room interior
     was very poor and has led to a rundown looking condition.

          (3)  Cracks in the windows and doors whistled all
     night from the [continuous] blowing of the wind off the
     bay.

     The Army has not denied these allegations.  The agency's only
specific comment on any of them comes from the Inspector General
(IG) at the headquarters of the U.S. Army Industrial Operations
Command (IOC), a command of which the Anniston Depot is a part. 
After investigating matters relating to the claim, the IG reported,
"The Navy Housing Division acknowledges a problem with cockroaches
and has contracted [with] an exterminator to eliminate them."

     The agency relies, in arguing that the quarters were adequate,
on the inclusion of CCAD on an official Army list of installations
with adequate quarters (but no dining facilities).  The agency
additionally states, through the IG's report, that "The Corpus
Christi Army Depot (CCAD) Commander and the Anniston Army Depot
(ANAD) Commander consider the quarters at the Naval Air Station
acceptable. . . .  The quarters are [also] considered acceptable by
the Navy."  These factors are important, according to the Army,
because of the ways in which IOC Regulation 55-2 says that
conditions of adequacy of quarters may be determined.  One way is
by reference to the list.  Another is a determination, "prior to
the TDY [temporary duty] travel involved, [by] the order-issuing
authority, as a result of direct communication with the Commanding
Officer (or designated representative) responsible for Government
quarters at the TDY station . . . concerned."  IOCR 55-2  5(p)(2),
(4).

     These statements help us to understand that the BOQ at the
Naval Air Station were officially considered to be acceptable, as
well as who within the military has made determinations of
acceptability.  The statements do not, however, help us to
understand whether the quarters really were acceptable.  The JTR
provide that commanders responsible for providing quarters to
civilian employees on TDY travel will "only offer adequate
quarters," not that the commanders "may offer quarters they deem
adequate."  JTR C1055-A.  The information supplied by the agency
leaves open the question which is central to this case.

     The claimants have called to our attention, in this regard, a
regulation which provides standards against which acceptability may
be assessed -- Army Regulation 210-50, "Housing Management" (Apr.
24, 1990).  All Army installation commanders must operate and
manage their housing programs, including accommodations for
Department of Defense civilians visiting installations in temporary
duty status, in accordance with this publication.  AR 210-50
 1-10, 1-12.  AR 210-50 authorizes installation commanders to
classify transient housing as either adequate or substandard, but
requires that when they do so, they follow certain guidelines.  Id.
 5-11.  The guidelines state that quarters are adequate only if
"the level of living experienced by . . . residents meets or
exceeds [specified] standards."  Id.  4-4.  Three of these
standards are relevant to these claims: "The housing must provide
a decent, safe, sanitary, and habitable accommodation in good
repair"; "[t]he furnishings, facilities, and services identified in
table 4-3 will be provided"; and "[g]uest housing must be
comparable in size, appearance, and amenities to good quality,
moderately-priced motels/hotels in the local community."  Id.; see
also id.  3-41.  Table 4-3 lists, among purportedly mandatory,
minimum furnishings and facilities for TDY travelers, "lock and
keys for doors to all rooms," "mattress with cover or pad,"
"adequate plumbing system," and "wall and ceiling surfaces in good
condition."

     Judged against these standards, the BOQ rooms to which Messrs.
Mitchell and Pitts were assigned were by no means adequate.  The
housing was not safe (defective plumbing system), sanitary
(cockroaches in bathroom), or in good repair (peeling and flaking
paint; loose window panes); the four cited mandatory, minimum
furnishing and facility requirements were not met; and we cannot
imagine that any good quality motels or hotels have these problems. 
As to the last point, we note that in reviewing the rental rates
charged by motels and hotels, preliminary to setting lodging
reimbursement limits under the Federal Travel Regulation, the
General Services Administration considers only establishments which
meet minimum standards some of whose features are similar to those
stated in AR 210-50.  Among them are housekeeping cleanliness ("of
primary importance"), security locks on doors to rooms, bedding
(including mattress pad) in good condition, and ample amounts of
hot water available in bathrooms at all times.  Although AR directs
installation commanders not to classify transient housing as
substandard merely because it does not meet a single requirement in
the regulation's table 4-3, or because it has minor, easily
correctable deficiencies, failure to meet essential building system
requirements (including "adequate plumbing system" and "wall and
ceiling surfaces in good condition") is cause for making such a
classification.  AR 210-50  5-11.  Given all that was wrong with
the rooms in which Messrs. Mitchell and Pitts were housed, any
determination that these quarters were adequate -- even if correct
at the time the determination was made -- was clearly arbitrary and
capricious for the period these gentlemen used them.

     The Army has not contended that when the two claimants
traveled on official business to Corpus Christi, any adequate
Government quarters other than the Naval Air Station BOQ were
available to these men.  The BOQ were not adequate quarters, given
the Army's own standards for assessing adequacy.  We consequently
conclude that the Army must reimburse Messrs. Mitchell and Pitts
for the lodging expense they incurred while on the trip in
question.  Reimbursement for each day is limited (as in the claims)
to the lower of the actual cost of the lodging or the maximum
amount prescribed for Corpus Christi at the time at the trip.  JTR
C4555-B; 41 CFR 301-7.9(c) (1996).





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge