BNUMBER:  B-259602
DATE:  November 27, 1995
TITLE:  Gerald A. Cavis; Jack L. Johnson, Jr.; Stephen P.
Monteiro; and James P. McGettigan

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

Matter of:Gerald A. Cavis; Jack L. Johnson, Jr.; Stephen P. Monteiro; 
          and James P. McGettigan

File:     B-259602

Date:     November 27, 1995

DIGEST

1.  An agency has appealed to the Comptroller General a settlement 
issued by the Claims Group granting waiver to four employees for debts 
incurred incident to long-term training assignments.  The Claims Group 
granted waiver based on their determination that the employees had 
relied on erroneous travel orders.  On appeal, however, the agency has 
presented additional information showing that the debts arose from 
excessive spending by the employees, and not in reliance on erroneous 
orders.  Accordingly, the Claims Group's settlement is reversed.

2.  Four employees assigned to long-term training assignments rented 
apartments on a monthly basis.  Each of them submitted "composite 
receipts" for lodging that included rent and a number of incidental 
lodging expenses.  They did not itemize each expense or provide 
receipts.  The use of so-called composite receipts that purport to 
include all incidental lodging expenses on one receipt is contrary to 
the Federal Travel Regulation requirement to itemize all expenses and 
to provide receipts for all lodging expenses.  An agency may gather 
its own data to determine the reasonableness of any expenses that are 
not properly substantiated.

DECISION

The United States Secret Service appeals Claims Group settlement, 
Z-2925858 et al., April 13, 1994, granting waiver to four employees 
for debts incurred incident to long-term training assignments 
performed by the employees.  We reverse.  Waiver is denied in all four 
cases.

BACKGROUND

The agency authorized the following employees to attend training at 
the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) in Anniston, 
Alabama, during the following periods:

Employee                        Period
                                
Gerald A. Cavis                 May 11 - August 12, 1988

Jack L. Johnson, Jr.            May 11 - August 19, 1986

Stephen P. Monteiro             May 11 - August 19, 1986

James P. McGettigan             January 5 - April 16, 1986
The agency has a written directive limiting the reimbursement for 
training that exceeds 30 days to 55 percent of the applicable maximum 
per diem rate.[1]  Higher rates may be approved in advance by the 
Office of Training.  However, in these cases, officials in the 
Forensic Services Division (FSD), in whose division the employees 
worked, issued each of the employees travel orders authorizing 100 
percent of the applicable maximum per diem rate.  Subsequently, each 
of the employees submitted vouchers claiming the full 100 percent 
rate, which were paid.

The Financial Management Division (FMD) discovered the error in 1991, 
when a similarly situated employee whose travel order contained the 
correct 55 percent limitation questioned why other employees had not 
had the reduced rate applied to their travel.

FMD employees questioned the FSD supervisors and learned that these 
supervisors were not aware of the requirement to reduce the maximum 
reimbursement rate for long-term assignments and consequently had not 
informed the employees attending the DODPI about the requirement.  The 
FSD supervisors asserted that the 55 percent limitation was 
insufficient and provided the FMD with costs FSD supervisors had 
determined to be reasonable.  Based on this information, the FMD 
concluded that the reimbursement rate should be 80 percent of the 
applicable maximum per diem rate.

Subsequently, the FMD began to review the vouchers of other Secret 
Service agents who had attended the DODPI training and discovered that 
all of the vouchers they reviewed had been paid at the 100 percent 
rate.  In the course of this investigation, the FMD noticed that the 
vouchers of some employees included lodging expenses substantially 
higher than the cost estimates used in FMD's analysis.

At this point, the agency's Office of Inspection (OI) joined the 
investigation.  This office discovered that the four individuals in 
this case had submitted receipts for lodging that were significantly 
higher than their rental payments.  What the employees had done was to 
have the apartment managers sign so-called composite receipts that 
included the rent and a number of incidental lodging expenses such as 
electricity, telephone installation, cable television and 
housekeeping.  These other lodging expenses were neither itemized nor 
documented with separate receipts.

Based on its own investigation, the OI then determined that an 
appropriate amount for incidental lodging expenses for the duration of 
the training would be $750, based on the estimated costs for a lease 
application fee, electric hook-up and usage, telephone installation 
and usage, basic cable installation and usage, television rental, 
apartment set-up and cleaning costs.  The OI then added this amount to 
the rent paid and divided this total by the number of days in the 
training program to determine the employees's actual daily lodging 
costs.[2]  This figure then was compared to the amounts claimed by 
each employee.

Based on these comparisons, the agency determined that these 
individuals were overpaid the following amounts:

Name                            Amount
                                
Gerald A. Cavis                 $1,661.50

Jack L. Johnson, Jr.                796.90

James P. McGettigan                 760.60

Stephen P. Monteiro                 811.80
The agency acknowledges that the original travel orders for these 
employees erroneously authorized reimbursement at the full 100 percent 
rate.  The record includes sworn statements from Messrs. Cavis, 
Johnson and Monteiro to the effect that they were told by persons in 
their respective offices and/or by other agents who had attended the 
DODPI to include all of their lodging expenses in a limited number of 
receipts and that it was not necessary to include separate receipts 
for each item.

Based on its review of the record submitted by the agency, the Claims 
Group concluded that the employees' debts resulted from reducing the 
allowable reimbursement rate from 100 percent of the maximum per diem 
rate to 80 percent of that rate, which the Claims Group noted was as 
an administrative error on the agency's part.  Moreover, the Claims 
Group found no indication that the employees were aware of the error.  
Therefore, the Claims Group concluded that the government's claims 
should be waived.

The agency acknowledges that the record submitted with the original 
employee appeals in these cases was not clear as to the source of the 
erroneous payments.  The repayment notices sent to the employees state 
that the amounts owed reflect adjustments for the lower reimbursement 
rate (from 100 percent to 80 percent) and disallowances for excessive 
incidental lodging expenses (those that exceeded $750 for the duration 
of the training).

In its appeal, the agency states that the amounts allowed for each 
employee's actual rent, plus $750 each for incidental lodging 
expenses, did not exceed the 80 percent maximum reimbursement rate.  
Therefore, according to the agency, the admitted failure to follow the 
agency directive to reduce the maximum reimbursement rate did not 
result in any of the debts that are the subject of the waiver 
requests.  Rather, the agency states that the debts at issue here 
resulted from the disallowance of the incidental expenses that 
exceeded $750, which the agency states is the most it would allow for 
reasonable incidental expenses based on their research.  The agency 
asserts the employees engaged in misrepresentation, and therefore, 
this warrants denial of their requests for waiver.  The agency also 
states that granting waiver in these cases would allow the employees 
to keep reimbursements for expenses that they did not incur, or at 
least could not document.

OPINION

Reimbursement for the travel and per diem expenses of employees 
assigned to training is authorized at 5 U.S.C.  4109, which states 
that such reimbursement will be made in accordance with the authority 
stated in subchapter 1 of chapter 57 of title V, United States Code, 
which is the authority applicable to most official travel by federal 
employees.  Regulations implementing these statutory authorities are 
issued by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with regard to 
training and by the General Services Administration in the form of the 
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) with regard to the rules generally 
applicable to reimbursement for travel expenses.

The OPM regulations are found in subpart F, part 410 of title V of the 
Code of Federal Regulations.  According to these regulations, when 
training exceeds 30 days, agencies may pay either 55 percent of the 
applicable full per diem rate specified in the FTR or, if the agency 
has a large number of employees trained at a facility in a single 
area, the agency may make a standardized payment determined by the 
agency and based on data of actual subsistence expenses for that area.  
5 C.F.R.  410.603(b) (1994).  If the agency does not use a 
standardized payment, the agency must pay all or part of the actual 
subsistence expenses incurred by the employee.  However, payment of 
actual subsistence expenses greater than the 55 percent rate "may be 
made only after documentation of the circumstances."  Id.[3]

Although generally, travel orders may not be amended retroactively to 
increase or decrease the rights of an employee, we have recognized an 
exception to this rule when the failure to change the orders would 
result in the failure to carry out a non-discretionary administrative 
regulation or policy.  Michael Kostishak, B-484460.2, Nov. 10, 1992, 
at 5, and cases cited therein.  In this case, the agency directive 
limiting reimbursement after the first 30 days of training to 55 
percent of the applicable maximum per diem rate unless a higher rate 
is approved by the Office of Training is such an administrative 
regulation, and, therefore, the agency properly applied the lower 
reimbursement rate during its review of the employees's vouchers.

The rules for payment of actual subsistence expenses are set out in 
Part 301-8 of the FTR.  Although not stated in these rules, we have 
approved reimbursement as lodging expenses items normally included in 
the rental of hotel rooms, including many of the items claimed here, 
television rental, telephone usage (but not installation) and cleaning 
services.  James L. Palmer, 56 Comp. Gen. 40 (1976).

The FTR requires employees to "itemize on the travel voucher each 
expense for which reimbursement is claimed on a daily basis," but 
allows employees to average expenses not accrued on a daily basis, 
such as laundry and dry cleaning.  41 C.F.R.  301-8.5(a)(1).  The FTR 
also requires receipts for lodging, regardless of the amount claimed.  
FTR  301-8.5(a)(2).  When an employee fails to itemize properly or 
provide receipts for expenses claimed on a voucher, agencies may use 
statistics, surveys or other available data to substantiate the 
reasonable costs for those items.  Timothy J. Oliver, 71 Comp. Gen. 58 
(1991).  With regard to any expenses within the maximum allowable 
amount, agencies are expected "to determine whether the expenses are 
reasonable and allowable subsistence expenses, and are necessarily 
incurred in connection with the travel assignment."  FTR  301-8.5(b).  
See also Christine G. Davis, B-254837, May 27, 1994, at 4, 5.

Therefore, the use of so-called composite receipts that purport to 
include all incidental lodging expenses on one receipt is contrary to 
the FTR requirement to itemize all expenses and to provide receipts 
for all lodging expenses.  Since the employees in these cases did not 
properly substantiate their incidental lodging expenses, the agency 
properly gathered its own data to determine an appropriate amount for 
reimbursement.  Furthermore, having determined a reasonable amount for 
incidental lodging expenses, the agency properly denied claims that 
exceeded this amount, even though some of the claimed expenses may 
have been properly documented.

The Comptroller General may waive claims of the United States "arising 
out of an erroneous payment of travel, transportation or relocation 
expenses."  5 U.S.C.  5584 (1988).  In this case, the employees 
allege that they relied on the erroneous travel order authorizing 
reimbursement at the 100 percent rate and on the advice of agency 
officials that they did not need individual receipts for each 
incidental lodging expense claimed.  The agency acknowledges the first 
error.  However, the record is not clear regarding who, if anyone, 
advised the employees that they did not need individual receipts.  In 
any event, we conclude that the debts owed by these employees did not 
result from the alleged erroneous advice and therefore, may not be 
waived.

In recalculating their vouchers, the agency allowed the employees the 
full amount for their rent payments and the full amount, without 
regard for receipts, for what agency personnel have determined were 
reasonable incidental lodging expenses.  Therefore, the disallowed 
amounts did not result from the change in the reimbursement rate or 
from the failure to attach receipts for each item.  Rather, the agency 
disallowed only those amounts that exceeded the reasonable amount for 
incidental lodging expenses established by the agency.

Accordingly, the Claims Group's settlements in these cases are 
reversed and the employees's requests for waivers are denied.[4]

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

1. United States Secret Service Administrative Manual,  3.10 VI, Jan. 
1, 1995, "Attendance at meetings of organizations or professional 
societies and training courses."

2. The OI could obtain the actual rent paid only for Mr. Cavis.  In 
the other three cases, the apartment managers's records did not go 
back far enough to show the actual rent payments.  According to the 
apartment managers, however, the monthly rent for one bedroom 
apartments during the time periods the employees stayed there was 
between $400 and $500.  In recalculating the other three employees's 
expenses, the agency allowed $500 for their monthly rental rates.

3. The agency here used standardized payments until 1986 and since 
then has required its employees to claim their actual expenses.

4. The authority to reverse a settlement from the Claims Group 
granting waiver is found at 4 C.F.R.  92.5(b) (1995).