________________________________________
                                    
                              July 11, 1997
                ________________________________________
                                    

GSBCA 14101-TRAV, 14102-TRAV


In the Matters of ALEXANDER KUNZER, MARK PABST


     Alexander Kunzer, Lakewood, CO, Claimant in GSBCA 14101-TRAV.

     Mark Pabst, Lakewood, CO, Claimant in GSBCA 14102-TRAV.

     Brenda Barker, Manager, Finance and Accounting Services
Operations Group, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of the Interior.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Two claimants, Mr. Mark Pabst and Mr. Alexander Kunzer,
request reimbursement of forfeited hotel room deposits.  For the
reasons that follow, we determine the employees are entitled to
payment of the forfeited deposits.  

     Claimants, employees of the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation, were on authorized temporary duty in
Prineville, Oregon from October 8 to October 10, 1996.   Unable
to secure lodgings in Prineville, they made reservations at the
Quality Redmond Hotel in Redmond, Oregon, which they guaranteed for
late arrival (after 4:00 p.m. on the day of arrival) with their
American Express credit cards.  Shortly before the travelers left
for Oregon, Mr. Pabst called the Best Western Hotel at Prineville
and obtained lodgings there for both employees.  The employees
arrived at the Prineville Best Western Hotel at 2:59 p.m. on
October 8.  They immediately requested the desk clerk there to
cancel the reservations at the Redmond hotel.  She called and
canceled the reservation (an event witnessed by both claimants) and
confirmed the cancellation, but failed to provide the claimants
with cancellation numbers.  

     Subsequently, the Quality Redmond Hotel billed each claimant's
credit card for one night's "no-show" charge of $51.38.  The
employees disputed the charges with the American Express Company,
which contacted the Quality Redmond Hotel.  The hotel refused to
acknowledge the cancellation without a cancellation number, and the
charges remained on the cards.  Claimants paid the charges.

     The employees then submitted supplemental travel vouchers to
the agency for reimbursement of the additional charges.  The
agency's Geotechnical Engineering Group forwarded the supplemental
vouchers to the agency's finance office for approval, stating that
its employees had acted in a prudent manner in canceling the
reservations.  The agency's finance office refused reimbursement on
the ground that "the documentation attached to the employee's
travel voucher does not support that the employee acted prudently
as the reservations were not canceled in a timely manner."  The
agency's finance office believed that prudent travelers would have
obtained cancellation numbers.  Mr. Kunzer states that in his
thirty years of personal and official travel, he has never received
or have been asked to provide a cancellation number.

     The Federal Travel Regulation does not contain a specific
provision under which forfeited hotel deposits may be reimbursed;
the regulations provide generally that an employee is expected to
exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person
would exercise if traveling on personal business.  41 CFR 1.3(a)
(1994).  The Government will reimburse its travelers for the cost
of forfeited hotel room deposits where the lodgings were not used
because of unforeseen circumstances, such as a change in Government
requirements, and the employees have exercised reasonable prudence. 
Dora M. Perez, B-225155 (July 16, 1987); Miguel H. Cintron,
B-221662 (July 28, 1986).  Here, claimants decided to stay in
accommodations more convenient to their place of temporary duty
than the accommodations previously available.  This decision is a
change in Government requirements.  See Loida Velilla, B-214204
(Oct. 19, 1984).  

     In one case, it was determined that oral rather than written
cancellation of hotel reservations was reasonable when an employee
canceled a  trip shortly before its commencement date, even though
the hotel later refused to acknowledge the cancellation.  Reim-
bursement was therefore allowed.  Darvin L. Lee, B-198699 (Oct. 6,
1980).  Here, claimants exercised reasonable prudence in asking the
desk clerk at the Best Western Hotel in Prineville to cancel their
room reservations at the Quality Hotel in Redmond.  The desk clerk
canceled their reservations, an act that was witnessed by both
claimants.  Claimants had every reason to believe that their
original hotel reservations had been canceled.  Claimants' failure
to take the precaution of obtaining and recording cancellation
numbers for the canceled reservations does not mean that claimants
acted unwisely in the way they canceled the reservations.  In this
case, being unfamiliar with the use of cancellation numbers,
claimants acted prudently and are entitled to reimbursement of the
forfeited deposits.  This matter is returned to the agency for
payment.  

                              _________________________ 
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge