________________

                               May 15, 1997
                             ________________


                             GSBCA 13897-TRAV


                      In the Matter of JAMES JACKSON


     James Jackson, Greenbelt, MD, Claimant.

     Richard N. Reback, Chief of Staff and General Counsel, Office
of Inspector General, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of
the Interior.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     James Jackson, an employee of the Department of the Interior
(DOI), is sometimes required to travel from his home in Greenbelt,
Maryland, to a temporary duty location in Reston, Virginia.  When
Mr. Jackson makes this trip, he goes via the Washington Beltway
(Route 495) and the Dulles Toll Road, a distance of 49 miles each
way.  Mr. Jackson's claim for reimbursement for each day that he
works in the Reston office is calculated by taking the total
distance driven (98 miles round-trip) and subtracting from that
amount the distance that Mr. Jackson normally commutes from his
home to his office in Arlington, Virginia (24 miles round-trip),
for a total of 74 miles per day.

     DOI granted Mr. Jackson a total of only 36 miles per day for
these trips, and it is from that determination that Mr. Jackson has
appealed to this Board.  DOI's calculation is based upon its
written policy of requiring that an employee take the shortest
route between his residence and his temporary duty station, unless
extenuating circumstances such as weather, traffic conditions, or
road conditions require otherwise.  Here, since the distance
between Mr. Jackson's office in Arlington and the office in Reston
is 18 miles, according to DOI, Mr. Jackson should not have had to
travel more than 36 additional miles round-trip when he commuted to
Reston.

     Mr. Jackson states that he takes the less direct route to
Reston because it is "faster" and has "less traffic congestion"
than the most direct route.  DOI questions Mr. Jackson's statement
that the alternate route saves time.  According to DOI, the direct
route, via Route 66, also has a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit and is
not congested during the morning rush hour for traffic traveling
away from the city of Washington, D.C., or during the evening rush
hour for traffic traveling toward the city.

     In June 1996, Mr. Jackson's supervisor asked Mr. Jackson to
support his claim by filling out a questionnaire aimed at
determining whether the additional mileage could be justified based
upon extenuating circumstances.  Mr. Jackson refused to complete
the questionnaire, claiming that DOI's policy was unfair and that
he was being singled out because he had objected to the local
travel policy.

                                Discussion

     When employees on official Government business receive
permission to use their privately owned vehicles, reimbursement is
generally made on a mileage basis.  41 CFR 301-4.1(a) (1996).
Distances between points traveled "shall be as shown in standard
highway mileage guides or actual miles driven as determined from
odometer readings."  However, "[a]ny substantial deviations from
distances shown in the standard highway mileage guides shall be
explained."  41 CFR 301-4.1(b).

     In addition to the above rules for using a privately owned
vehicle, all Government employees traveling on official business
are obligated to follow the "prudent person rule":

          An employee traveling on official business is
          expected to exercise the same care in
          incurring expenses that a prudent person would
          exercise if traveling on personal business. 
          Excess costs, circuitous routes, delays, or
          luxury accommodations and services unnecessary
          or unjustified in the performance of official
          business are not acceptable under this
          standard.  Employees will be responsible for
          excess costs and any additional expenses
          incurred for personal preference or
          convenience.

41 CFR 301-1.3(a).

     Given these requirements, we find reasonable DOI's policy of
reimbursing employees based upon the shortest route between points
of travel, unless the employee can demonstrate that extenuating
circumstances did not permit traveling by the shortest route.  Mr.
Jackson was given the opportunity to attempt to demonstrate that
such extenuating circumstances exist, but he chose not to complete
the questionnaire which was designed for that purpose.  Under the
circumstances, and because he has presented no evidence that he is
being "singled out," we find that DOI did not abuse its discretion
in denying Mr. Jackson's claim.

                                 Decision

     The claim is denied.




                                   ____________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge