May 9, 1997 GSBCA 14079-TRAV, 14080-TRAV, 14081-TRAV, 14082-TRAV, 14083-TRAV, 14084-TRAV In the Matters of SHERI BURDICK, ROBERT J. PRATHER, JEANNE L. NEWLIN, VITALIA M. DEVLIN, SHARON C. MOBLEY, and JAMES R. REED Sheri Burdick, Rockville, MD, Claimant in GSBCA 14079-TRAV. Robert J. Prather, Mountain View, CA, Claimant in GSBCA 14080-TRAV. Jeanne L. Newlin, Las Vegas, NV, Claimant in GSBCA 14081-TRAV. Vitalia M. Devlin, Fort Worth, TX, Claimant in GSBCA 14082-TRAV. Sharon C. Mobley, Cedar Hill, TX, Claimant in GSBCA 14083-TRAV. James R. Reed, Grand Prairie, TX, Claimant in GSBCA 14084-TRAV. Debra McKee, Chief, Accounting & Payment, Department of Veterans Affairs, Dallas, TX, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Sheri Burdick, Robert J. Prather, Jeanne L. Newlin, Vitalia M. Devlin, Sharon C. Mobley, and James R. Reed are all employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). During the period from July 12 to 25, 1996, the VA sent them to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on official business. Mr. Reed explains that he and about twenty other VA employees had to be in Tuscaloosa at that particular time to perform technical coordination and software programming during the installation of a major new software package at the Tuscaloosa Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Whether the other named individuals were part of this effort or not, all of them state, and the VA does not contest, that the work they did in Tuscaloosa had to be performed at that particular time. Before the employees left their duty stations for these travel assignments, their supervisors issued to them travel orders which authorized reimbursement for lodging expenses in an amount up to $66 per night. With one exception noted below, each employee spent $64.80 per night for lodging at a Tuscaloosa hotel and sought reimbursement in that amount. The VA auditor who examined their vouchers allowed only $53 per night, however. The employees claim that they are entitled to the full extent of their lodging expenses. Statute provides that a Government employee, when traveling on official business away from his designated post of duty, is entitled to a per diem allowance, reimbursement of expenses actually and necessarily incurred, or a combination of the two. 5 U.S.C. 5702(a)(1) (1994). The rates and conditions regarding the allowance and reimbursement are established in the Federal Travel Regulation by the Administrator of General Services. Id. 5702(a)(1), 5707(a)(1); 41 CFR ch. 301 (1996). According to the FTR, payment of per diem allowances is the standard means of covering employees' costs of traveling on official business. 41 CFR 301-7.1(a). Per diem rates are established on a "lodgings-plus" basis; they include, for each specified locality, a maximum amount for lodging expenses and a fixed allowance for meals and incidental expenses. Id. 301-7.3(a), Appendix A. As to lodging, the employee is to be reimbursed for actual costs incurred, up to the maximum amount. Id. 301-7.6(b)(1), -7.9(c). In July 1996, this amount for Tuscaloosa was $53 per night. Id. Appendix A. Consistent with statute, the FTR also permits agencies to authorize or approve reimbursement for the actual and necessary subsistence expenses of official travel in certain circumstances. 41 CFR 301-8.1(a). The regulation explains, "The maximum per diem rate, although generally adequate, may be insufficient for a particular travel assignment because the actual and necessary subsistence expenses are unusually high due to special duties or because subsistence costs have escalated due to special or unforeseen events." Id. 301-8.2(a). One example of a circumstance which falls within this description is, "The travel is to an area where the applicable maximum per diem allowance is generally adequate but subsistence costs have escalated for short periods of time during special functions or events such as missile launching periods, international or national sports events, world's fairs, conventions, or natural disasters." Id. 301-8.2(a)(2). When reimbursement of actual expenses is authorized by an agency for travel within the continental United States, this reimbursement is limited to 150 percent of the maximum per diem rate for the location in question. Id. 301-8.3(a)(1). The FTR allows agencies to permit, for any day of travel, reimbursement of actual expenses for lodging and the standard per diem allowance for meals and incidental expenses. Id. 301-8.3(b)(2). The VA's internal employee travel management manual, MP-1, Pt. II, Ch. 2, 10, reiterates the FTR provisions discussed in this paragraph. The claimants maintain, and the VA does not deny, that during the days that they traveled to Tuscaloosa, hotels in that city had raised their normal rates because of a demand for rooms by people desiring to watch the Olympic soccer games which were being played in nearby Birmingham. This is precisely the sort of circumstance in which the FTR allows agencies to extend to employees reimbursement for actual expenses of lodging, rather than the standard per diem amounts. In authorizing each of the employees to receive reimbursement for lodging expenses in an amount up to $66 per night, rather than the standard $53, the employees' supervisors were reasonably exercising authority granted by the FTR. Sixty-six dollars was a permissible amount because it is within the 150-percent limit prescribed by regulation. The Administrator of General Services increased the lodging maximums during the Olympics for travel to several jurisdictions, but Tuscaloosa was not one of them. 61 Fed. Reg. 28211-12, 36731-32, 64747-48 (1996) (GSA Bulletin FTR 19 & Supplements 1 & 2 thereto). The VA maintains that this fact demonstrates that allowing reimbursement of more than the standard per diem amount for Tuscaloosa was improper. This argument is not correct. The Administrator was exercising authority reserved to him by section 301-8.3(c) of the FTR, which permits him, in special or unusual circumstances, to allow reimbursement of actual expenses in amounts up to 300 percent of applicable per diem rates. The Administrator's use of this power did not limit the authority of the VA supervisors, acting in accordance with section 301-8.2 of the FTR, to authorize reimbursement of actual expenses in amounts up to 150 percent of applicable per diem rates, in appropriate circumstances. We consequently conclude that consistent with the travel authorizations, the employees should have been reimbursed for the $64.80 per night each of them spent for a hotel room while in Tuscaloosa. Since the VA originally paid each employee $53 per night, this means that the agency owes each of them an additional $11.80 per night. Ms. Burdick, Mr. Prather, and Mr. Reed, who were in Tuscaloosa for twelve nights, are each due $141.60; Ms. Newlin, who was there for eleven nights, is due $129.80; and Ms. Devlin, who was there for nine nights, is due $106.20. Ms. Mobley's situation is slightly different from the others. She took two trips to Tuscaloosa during the period in question. On the first trip, she paid the hotel $71.28 per night for four nights. Ms. Mobley is entitled to receive $66 per night for her lodgings -- the lesser of her actual expenses or the amount authorized. She is therefore due $13 per night ($66 less the $53 reimbursement she has already received), or $52 for the four nights. On her second trip, she incurred lodging expenses of $64.80 per night -- an amount within the limitation authorized -- for four nights, and is therefore owed $47.20. We note additionally that Ms. Burdick's case is unique in that it includes an additional claim for travel expenses relating to a trip she took for the VA to Boston in March 1996. The VA has agreed to pay the amount at issue. We therefore do not address this part of her case. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge