BNUMBER:  B-259620
DATE:  February 29, 1996
TITLE:  Cross-cultural Training for Spouses of FAA Overseas
Employees-Travel Expenses

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

Matter of:Cross-cultural Training for Spouses of FAA Overseas 
          Employees-Travel Expenses

File:     B-259620

Date:February 29, 1996

DIGEST

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) may pay the travel costs of 
the spouses of FAA overseas employees to attend cross-cultural 
training sessions conducted at overseas locations.  The FAA states 
that this training is important to the success of the FAA employees' 
assignments.  Thus the spouses' attendance at the training provides a 
direct and substantial benefit to the government and the FAA may pay 
their travel expenses under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5703.

DECISION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asks whether it may pay the 
travel expenses of the spouses of its overseas employees to attend 
cross-cultural training programs at various overseas locations.  The 
answer is yes.

BACKGROUND   

The submission states that the FAA offers cross-cultural training to 
employees who are stationed at overseas posts and their spouses to 
facilitate the transition to the foreign environment.  According to 
the agency, this training enables the employees to become more 
productive in a shorter period of time and greatly improves their 
chances for a successful overseas tour.  The agency also states, "It 
is very important that this training be provided to spouses as well as 
employees, since the most frequent cause of unsuccessful assignments 
is the failure of the spouse to adapt to the foreign environment."  
Because it is economically feasible to offer these training sessions 
only at central locations where there are a substantial number of FAA 
employees, the agency would like to pay the costs of the employees' 
spouses to travel from the agency's smaller offices to these central 
locations.  It asks whether it may issue invitational travel orders to 
the spouses of employees to travel to the training programs.

OPINION

The invitational travel authority is found at 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5703, which 
provides:

        An employee serving intermittently in the government service 
        as an expert or consultant and paid on a daily 
        when-actually-employed basis, or serving without pay or at $1 
        a year, may be allowed travel or transportation expenses, 
        under this subchapter, while away from his home or regular 
        place of business and at the place of employment or 
        service.[1]

The term "employee" as used in section 5703, specifically is defined 
to mean "an individual employed in or under an agency including an 
individual employed intermittently in Government service as an expert 
or consultant and paid on a daily when-actually-employed basis and an 
individual serving without pay or at $1 a year."  5 U.S.C.  sec.  
5701(2).[2]

The phrase "individual serving without pay" encompasses persons other 
than those serving the government in a purely advisory capacity.  48 
Comp. Gen. 110 (1968).  Thus, we held that section 5703 was broad 
enough to be used for the purpose of paying for the travel of 
individuals to appear as witnesses for the government at an 
administrative hearing.  In 37 Comp. Gen. 349 (1957), we had earlier 
concluded that "persons serving without compensation" may include 
college faculty members who travel for the purpose of consulting with 
agency officials concerning agencies recruitment of college students.  
We noted that such travel would enable the faculty members to "become 
better acquainted with the type of work, the working conditions, and 
benefits offered persons in the government service, and, by reason 
thereof, [they] would be better able to advise college students 
concerning government employment."  Id. at 350.

More recently, we have reviewed requests from two agencies to pay the 
expenses of employees' and military members' spouses traveling to 
attend government-sponsored seminars held for the purpose of briefing 
the employees, members and spouses on matters considered directly 
relevant to the agencies' missions, and in both cases, we concluded 
that 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5703 may be used to authorize payment for such costs.

In one of these cases, we approved a proposed amendment to the Joint 
Federal Travel Regulations to allow reimbursement for the travel 
expenses of the spouses and dependents of military members incurred to 
attend anti-terrorism briefing sessions incident to their accompanying 
the member on his or her overseas permanent duty assignment.  71 Comp. 
Gen. 6 (1991).  We noted that the dependents of military members 
stationed overseas often find themselves in areas where there is 
terrorism and political unrest and that proper training about these 
dangers can prevent government losses in both financial and other 
considerations.  We therefore concluded that the cost of the travel to 
attend such briefing sessions could be authorized.

In the other case, we considered a request from the FAA to pay the 
travel costs of the spouses of FAA employees to attend security 
training before traveling with the employee to the employee's new 
overseas duty station.  71 Comp. Gen. 9 (1991).  The agency stated 
that the training was necessary "to effectively protect the family and 
interests of the government under situations including surveillance, 
counterintelligence and terrorist activities."

We noted that in several prior decisions we had approved reimbursement 
of travel expenses for private individuals upon a determination that 
the travel served a sufficient government interest.  Examples cited 
were cases involving an employee's spouse's travel to attend an awards 
ceremony honoring the employee, and applicants' for federal positions 
travel to attend pre-employment interviews.  See Sharon S. Rutledge, 
69 Comp. Gen. 38 (1989); and 60 Comp. Gen. 235 (1981).[3]

In deciding those cases, we also considered the provisions of 31 
U.S.C.  sec.  1345 that provides in part:

        "Except as specifically provided by law, an appropriation may 
        not be used for travel, transportation, and subsistence 
        expenses for a meeting.  This section does not prohibit-

        "(1)  an agency from paying the expenses of an officer or 
        employee of the United States Government carrying out an 
        official duty . . ."

While we said that it is not entirely clear that a government training 
course is the sort of "meeting" contemplated by section 1345, we noted 
that, in any event, section 1345 does not apply to individuals issued 
travel orders under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5703, provided they are performing a 
"direct service" to the government.  We concluded that participation 
of spouses in the security course readily met that test, noting that, 
essentially, the training sessions were "integral aspects of the 
proper execution of the employee's own reassignment and his or her 
family's attendant change of station."  Id. at 11.

Here, also, the FAA wants to pay the travel expenses of the spouses of 
employees to attend FAA-sponsored training programs because it 
receives a substantial benefit from their attendance at the programs.  
The FAA explains that the most frequent cause of unsuccessful overseas 
assignments is the failure of its overseas employee's spouse to adapt 
to the foreign environment.  It reports that it recently began 
presenting in-country cross-cultural training to the spouses of 
employees who were recently posted overseas and found that such 
training greatly improves the chances for a successful overseas tour 
and enables an employee to become more productive in a shorter period.

As we recognized in 48 Comp. Gen. 110, supra, the invitational travel 
authority, 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5703, is not limited to the travel of persons 
serving the government in a purely advisory capacity, but also 
encompasses others whose travel is necessary incident to service which 
provides a direct benefit to the government.  Based on the foregoing, 
we conclude that the attendance at agency-sponsored cross-cultural 
training of employees' spouses provides a direct and substantial 
benefit to the government, significantly more than mere attendance at 
a conference or meeting.  Accordingly, we have no objection to the 
FAA's proposal to pay the travel expenses of the spouses of FAA 
employees to attend cross-cultural training sessions where it is more 
economical to do so than to hold the sessions at the employee's duty 
station.

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

1. These provisions were derived from provisions enacted by the act of 
Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 744,  sec.  5, 60 Stat. 808 and subsequently codified in 
the current statutes in 1975.  Section 4, Pub. L. No. 94-22, May 19, 
1975, 89 Stat. 85.  The purpose stated for these provisions at that 
time was to establish "that the same provisions regarding per diem 
allowances will be applicable to all persons traveling on official 
Government business, including employees, experts consultants, 
volunteers and $1-a-year people." H.R. Rep. No. 94-104, 94th Cong., 
1st Sess., at 6 (1975).

2. By contrast, the definition of "employee" found at 5 U.S.C.  sec.  2105, 
which applies generally to title 5, unless otherwise specified, 
essentially is limited to persons appointed in the civil service who 
are engaged in the performance of a federal function and subject to 
the supervision of one of the categories of federal officials named in 
that section.

3. This decision concerning job-applicant travel predated enactment of 
5 U.S.C.  sec.  5706b that now specifically covers such travel.