_____________________

                             January 17, 1997
                           _____________________


                             GSBCA 13828-TRAV


                     In the Matter of DENNIS H. BOYLE


     Dennis H. Boyle, Swoyersville, PA, Claimant.

     T. J. Heavyside, Director for Finance & Accounting Policy
Implementation, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     Dennis H. Boyle is a civilian employee of the Department of
the Army (the Army).  On March 15, 1995, the Army authorized
Mr. Boyle to travel to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey for two days. 
Mr.  Boyle's travel authorization states, "Utilization of govt qtrs
not req'd per Chap 1055-1-(4) Vol. 2 JTR."  Mr. Boyle was aware
that the Army required its travelers to stay in Government quarters
when available, and he had discussed this requirement with his
travel office in the past.  Mr. Boyle says that, when he saw his
travel authorization, he assumed that a problem existed with the
Government quarters at Fort Monmouth, and so he spent the night in
a hotel at a cost of $83.74.  The Army denied Mr. Boyle's claim for
the cost of the hotel, and Mr. Boyle submitted his claim to the
General Accounting Office (GAO).

     On August 22, 1995, GAO denied Mr. Boyle's claim for the cost
of the hotel.  Dennis H. Boyle, Z-2869623 (Aug. 22, 1995). 
Mr. Boyle asked GAO to reconsider its denial of his claim.  Before
GAO acted upon his request, this matter was reassigned from GAO to
the General Services Board of Contract Appeals.  

     We reviewed the claim, the agency's comments, GAO's decision,
Mr. Boyle's request for reconsideration, and the pertinent
regulations.  We agree with GAO that Mr. Boyle's claim should be
denied.

                                Discussion

     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), issued by the
Administrator of General Services, governs reimbursement for costs
incurred by civilian employees of the Government who travel for
official business.  According to the FTR, travelers will usually be
reimbursed for their lodging costs, up to a maximum amount.  An
agency may determine, however, that payment for lodging is not
appropriate in certain situations, such as when quarters are
provided by the Government.  41 CFR 301-7.9, 7.10, 7.12 (1996).  

     The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), issued by the Department
of Defense, integrate and supplement the FTR, and apply to
Department of Defense (DoD) civilian employees.  By statute, DoD
funds cannot be used to pay the lodging expenses of a civilian
employee on official travel when adequate Government quarters are
available and not used by the employee, unless the employee will be
required to travel more than one-half of the time during the year. 
10 U.S.C.  1589 (1994).  When Mr. Boyle traveled, this statutory
prohibition was implemented by JTR C1055-A, which provided that, if
a traveler failed to use adequate and available Government
quarters, the traveler could not be reimbursed for lodging except
when:

     (1) the order-issuing authority issued a statement, prior or
subsequent to the travel, saying that utilization of Government
quarters would adversely affect the mission,

     (2) the order-issuing authority issued a statement, prior to
the travel, that adequate Government quarters would not be
available,

     (3) the commanding officer at the temporary duty station
furnished a statement that utilization of Government quarters would
be impracticable, or

     (4) the employee's duties would require official travel for
more than fifty percent of the year.

     Mr. Boyle does not contend that either JTR C1055-A(1), (2), or
(3) applies to him.  The Army says that Mr. Boyle was not required
to travel more than fifty percent of the time and Mr. Boyle does
not dispute this, so JTR C1055-A(4) does not apply to him. 
Therefore, according to the regulations in effect at the time he
traveled, Mr. Boyle is not entitled to be reimbursed for lodging in
a hotel.  

     Mr. Boyle contends that his travel authorization permitted him
to be reimbursed for staying in a hotel and that this constitutes
a contract that the Army is bound to honor.  We reject this
contention because the travel authorization did not permit
reimbursement.  The travel authorization refers to "Chap 1055-1-(4)
Vol. 2 JTR," which is a JTR provision that was not in effect when
Mr. Boyle traveled.  JTR 1055-1-(4) was replaced by JTR 1055-A(4)
on May 1, 1994.  Like JTR 1055-A(4), JTR 1055-1-(4) applied only to
employees whose duties required official travel more than fifty
percent of the year, and Mr. Boyle did not travel more than fifty
percent of the year.  Thus, the travel authorization did not permit
Mr. Boyle to be reimbursed for staying in a hotel.  




                                   ___________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge