BNUMBER:  B-256897
DATE:  September 23, 1996
TITLE:  Dr. Alejandro A. Gonzalez

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Dr. Alejandro A. Gonzalez

File:     B-256897

Date:September 23, 1996

DIGEST

An employee who was authorized to use his privately owned automobile 
(POV) for travel on official business as a matter of personal 
preference, instead of using a government-furnished automobile, was 
entitled to reimbursement at a rate of 18 cents per mile based on the 
average cost of using a government automobile.  When his POV broke 
down while he was traveling on official business, he elected to return 
home by commercial airline.  The agency correctly limited his 
reimbursement to the authorized 18 cents mileage rate for travel 
rather than the higher actual cost he incurred traveling by air.  
While an employee whose use of a POV for official travel is authorized 
as advantageous to the government may be reimbursed for extra travel 
expenses incurred due to breakdown of the POV, this employee's use of 
POV was not on that basis, and thus the extra expense incurred is 
considered a personal matter, and the government's obligation is 
limited to the 18 cents mileage rate authorized under applicable 
regulations.  

DECISION

This is in response to a request for a decision from an authorized 
certifying officer as to whether an employee who was authorized to use 
his privately owned vehicle (POV) in lieu of a government automobile 
for temporary duty travel (TDY) may be reimbursed for the extra 
expenses he incurred to return from a TDY assignment by commercial 
airline due to the breakdown of his POV enroute.[1]  For the reasons 
set out below, reimbursement is not authorized.

BACKGROUND

Dr. Alejandro A. Gonzalez, an employee of the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture, was detailed in 
July 1991 from his official duty station in Sequin, Texas, to perform 
TDY in Wichita Falls, Texas.  The agency states that Dr. Gonzalez was 
a "high mileage" driver authorized to travel via POV at a special rate 
of 18 cents per mile. 

While enroute via POV from his residence in Beeville, Texas, to 
Wichita Falls, 
Dr. Gonzalez's automobile sustained major mechanical problems in 
Hillsboro, Texas.  As a result, he left his POV in Hillsboro for 
repairs and obtained permission from his area office to rent an 
automobile and continue his trip to Wichita Falls.  Upon completion of 
his TDY in Wichita Falls, he returned to Hillsboro to pick up his POV.  
However, the repairs had not been completed, so he elected to continue 
to his residence via commercial airline and have his wife pick him up 
at the airport.  For the portion of his travel from Hillsboro to 
Beeville, Dr. Gonzalez claimed reimbursement for the cost of the air 
fare ($143.00) plus a mileage allowance for his wife's roundtrip to 
pick him up from the airport ($25.20).  The agency limited his 
reimbursement to constructive mileage at 18 cents per mile for the 
distance from Hillsboro to Beeville as though he had traveled by POV 
($51.66), and asks us whether it may reimburse the additional amount 
Dr. Gonzalez claims. 

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

It has long been held that a mechanical breakdown of an employee's 
automobile and expense incurred due to the resulting delay in travel 
is not incident to official duty but personal to the employee and not 
compensable by the government.  
20 Comp. Gen. 120 (1940).  However, an exception to this rule has been 
made where the employee's use of a POV for the official travel has 
been authorized based on a determination that it is advantageous to 
the government.  42 Comp. Gen. 436 (1963), modifying 20 Comp. Gen. 
120, supra.   In cases in which such a determination has been made as 
to the use of the POV, we have held that additional per diem may be 
paid for the delay incurred due to the breakdown of the POV, and/or 
reimbursement may be made for expenses incurred returning home by an 
alternate mode of transportation, provided the agency finds any delay 
incurred was reasonable and the traveler's actions were in accord with 
administrative instructions.  42 Comp. Gen. 436, supra.; Harry 
Kushner, B-186829, Jan. 27, 1977; and Dennis Stafford, B-256331, Feb. 
1, 1995.

Under applicable provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 
C.F.R.  sec.  301-2.2(d)(3), use of a POV for official travel shall be 
authorized only "when its use is advantageous to the Government," and 
a determination that use of a POV is advantageous to the government is 
to be preceded by a determination that  "transportation by common 
carrier, a Government-contract rental automobile, or 
Government-furnished transportation is not available or would not be 
advantageous to the Government."[2]  An exception to these rules is 
provided by FTR  sec.  301-2.2(e) which applies to "permissive" use of a 
POV when an employee uses the POV as a matter of "personal preference" 
and such use is compatible with the performance of official business, 
although not determined to be advantageous to the government under  sec.  
301-2.2(d)(3).  Such permissive use may be authorized or approved 
provided that reimbursement is limited in accordance with FTR Part 
301-4.

In Dr. Gonzalez's case, his use of a POV for official travel was not 
authorized based on a determination that it was advantageous to the 
government per FTR  sec.  301-2.2(d)(3), in which case he would have been 
entitled to reimbursement at the rate of 25 cents per mile.[3]  Dr. 
Gonzalez's use of the POV as a "high mileage driver" apparently was 
permissive, based on FTR Part 301-4 under which a POV may be 
authorized for official travel instead of a government-furnished 
automobile even though the government-furnished automobile would be 
more advantageous to the government.  FTR  sec.  301-4.4(a).  Under these 
provisions, when an employee who is expected to perform extensive 
automobile travel on official business elects to use a POV rather than 
a government-furnished automobile and otherwise meets the terms of the 
regulation, the employee's reimbursement is based on the average 
mileage cost for the use of a government-furnished automobile, which 
was 18 cents per mile at the time of Dr. Gonzalez's travel.  FTR  sec.  
301-4.4(b).[4]

Since Dr. Gonzalez's use of his POV was at his election as a matter of 
personal preference, and not because it was determined advantageous to 
the government, his case does not fall within the exception to the 
general rule recognized in the cases discussed above.  Therefore, the 
extra expense Dr. Gonzalez incurred as a result of his decision to 
return home by commercial airline because the repairs to his POV had 
not been completed must be considered a personal matter, and the 
government's obligation to him is limited to the 18 cents mileage 
allowance authorized by the agency for his travel pursuant to FTR  sec.  
301-4.4(b), supra.  Because he has been reimbursed on this basis, he 
is due no more.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy 
General Counsel

1. The request for decision was submitted by the Authorized Certifying 
Officer, Department of Agriculture, Office of Finance and Management, 
National Finance Center, New Orleans.

2. See also the discussion of these regulatory provisions in 56 Comp. 
Gen. 131, 134-136 (1976).

3. The 25 cent rate, applicable at the time in question,was 
established by FTR  sec.  301-4.2(a), pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5704(a), which 
provides authority to establish such a mileage rate for use of a POV 
authorized or approved "as more advantageous to the Government."

4. This provision implements 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5704(c), which specifically 
provides that in any case in which an employee who is engaged on 
official business chooses to use a POV in lieu of a government 
vehicle, payment on a mileage basis is limited to the cost of travel 
by a government vehicle.