BNUMBER:  B-260907
DATE:  January 26, 1996
TITLE:  Dennis W. Hancock

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

Matter of:Dennis W. Hancock

File:     B-260907

Date:   January 26, 1996 

DIGEST

A Certifying Officer for the Department of Defense (DOD) asks whether 
the agency may reimburse an employee for lodging expenses he incurred 
while on a temporary duty (TDY) assignment.  The claims may not be 
paid.  The employee did not stay in government-leased quarters, 
although they remained available for him.  Section 1589 of title 10, 
United States Code, prohibits the reimbursement of lodging expenses 
for DOD employees when adequate government quarters are available, but 
are not used.

DECISION

A certifying officer of the Department of Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service requests an advance decision on lodging claims 
submitted by Mr. Dennis W. Hancock, an employee of the Department of 
the Navy, for lodging expenses he incurred after vacating 
government-leased quarters.  In addition, the agency states that Mr. 
Hancock erroneously received lodging expenses, and that he is indebted 
in the amount of $6,922.22.  The claims may not be paid, and Mr. 
Hancock is indebted for the balance due of $6,922.22.

BACKGROUND

At the time he incurred the lodging expenses at issue here, Mr. 
Hancock was serving as an Engineering Technician.  Although the agency 
designated his official duty station as Puget Sound Naval Yard, his 
specific job was to serve as the On-Site Representative (OSR) to the 
Naval Air Station, North Island, California.  He occasionally traveled 
to other installations.  The OSR acts as a liaison between the design 
division at Puget Sound and various ship repair facilities.  The 
position description for an OSR Engineering Technician states "Travels 
as necessary to perform duties."

On April 8, 1993, Mr. Hancock began a temporary duty (TDY) assignment 
at North Island, which is near San Diego, that, through a number of 
extensions, did not end until December 23, 1994.  Because Mr. Hancock 
is a single parent with two children, personnel from Puget Sound and 
North Island sent letters to the Central Travel Unit requesting 
special accommodations for Mr. Hancock.

After a stay in Bachelor Officer's Quarters (BOQ), and a short TDY 
assignment, Mr. Hancock obtained private lodgings for himself and his 
children on May 28 at the Oakwood Coronado Corporate Apartments, which 
he paid for himself.  Subsequently, the Navy arranged a direct lease 
of the apartment for Mr. Hancock for the period July 1 through 
December 22, 1993, at a monthly rate of $1,591.00.

Because of problems with his children, which are not detailed in the 
record, the apartment's contract housing manager notified Mr. Hancock 
that he was being evicted.  Mr. Hancock remained in the apartment 
until the end of December and then arranged for other lodgings for 
himself and his children for the duration of his TDY at North Island.  
Mr. Hancock did not obtain a certificate indicating that government 
quarters were not available in BOQ or elsewhere.

A statute applicable to the Department of Defense (DOD), prohibits 
that agency from using its available funds to pay the lodging expenses 
of its civilian employees on official travel "where adequate 
Government quarters are available but are not occupied by such 
employee or person."  10 U.S.C.  sec.  1589.  Quarters leased from private 
contractors are considered government quarters for the purpose of this 
statute.  See Katherine H. Briley, B-256982, June 10, 1994, reversed 
on other grounds, B-256982.2, Jan. 17, 1995, and Robert Samalis, 
B-252291, June 18, 1993.  Consequently, after he left the Oakwood 
apartments, the agency did not authorize reimbursement for lodgings 
and, instead, limited his reimbursement to 55 percent of the rate for 
miscellaneous and incidental expenses (M&IE).

The Commander, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, states that, based on the 
extensive travel required for his position, Mr. Hancock should have 
been authorized to stay in nongovernment quarters under the authority 
of a regulatory exception to the statute.[1]  This exception permits 
reimbursement for nongovernment quarters "when it is determined by the 
DOD component concerned that an employee's duties will require 
official travel in excess of 50 percent of the total number of the 
employee's basic administrative work weeks during the current fiscal 
year."  2 Joint Federal Travel Regulation (2 JTR), para. C1055-A-4 
(Ch. 343, May 1, 1994.).  According to the Commander, the travel 
order, simply by authorizing travel for more than 50 percent of Mr. 
Hancock's administrative workweeks, represents the agency's 
determination that he is exempt from the requirement to stay in 
government quarters.[2]

Furthermore, the Commander states that Mr. Hancock was told that he 
(Mr. Hancock) could procure private lodgings at a monthly rate up to 
$1,400 and that Mr. Hancock relied in good faith on this advice when 
he obtained private lodgings following the eviction.  However, this 
was not noted on Mr. Hancock's travel orders.

The certifying officer, on the other hand, states that if adequate 
government quarters are available, but unused, the lodging portion of 
per diem is zero.  Government-contracted quarters were available up to 
the period of eviction, and Mr. Hancock did not submit a 
nonavailability statement of BOQ for the period after eviction.

OPINION

Generally, dependents who accompany an employee on temporary duty must 
travel at the employee's expense.  B-148529, May 18, 1962; See also 
Geoffrey Arn, B-192548, Nov. 23, 1979.  Therefore, with regard to Mr. 
Hancock's claims, we may consider only the reimbursement to which he 
was entitled as if he was traveling alone.

As we noted above, DOD employees generally are expected to lodge in 
government quarters, when available.  The exceptions authorized by 2 
JTR all require the component involved to justify the decision to 
exempt an employee from this requirement.  In the case of the 
exception noted above, 2 JTR provides further:

     "[T]he requirement to use available Government quarters is not 
     applicable to an employee who is identified by the DOD component 
     concerned as being employed under conditions in which normal 
     duties require official travel in excess of 50 percent of the 
     total number of the employee's basic administrative work weeks 
     during the current fiscal year. . . .  The identification 
     required by this subparagraph may be by statement in the related 
     travel order, or an amendment thereto, or by such other means 
     desired by the Service concerned."  2 JTR, para. C1055 (Ch. 343, 
     May 1, 1994).

According to the Finance Office, although there is no Navy regulation 
requiring that the identification required by 2 JTR be done in a 
particular way, the Navy practice is to note this identification on 
the employee's travel order.  In this case, the appropriate DOD 
component at Puget Sound did not indicate on Mr. Hancock's travel 
orders that he was exempt from the requirement to stay in government 
quarters.  Nonetheless, as we noted above, the Commander asserts that 
the travel orders themselves, because they authorized travel in excess 
of 50 percent of the fiscal year, exempted Mr. Hancock from this 
requirement.  We disagree.

By its own terms, 2 JTR, para. C1055-E requires some affirmative act 
to identify employees who may be reimbursed for staying in 
nongovernment quarters.  Moreover, the regulation does not prohibit 
agencies from authorizing government quarters for employees who 
otherwise might be exempt under para. 1055-E.  For any number of 
reasons related to cost, efficiency or the nature of the assignment, 
DOD components still may choose to require an employee to lodge in 
government quarters, if available.  This may be especially relevant 
for employees who, like Mr. Hancock, perform extended TDY at one 
location, in contrast to employees who are frequently checking into 
and out of installations.

Accordingly, since no determination had been made to designate Mr. 
Hancock as exempt under 2 JTR, para. C1055-E, and because unoccupied 
government quarters remained available for him, he may not be 
reimbursed for the lodging expenses he incurred after he moved out of 
the Oakwood apartment.  Mr. Hancock is also liable for the amount he 
was erroneously reimbursed for lodging expenses.

However, under the circumstances of this case, the agency may wish to 
consider the amount of the erroneous overpayment for waiver under the 
provisions of 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5584, and in accordance with the provisions 
of 4 C.F.R. part 91.

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

1. The regulation is similar to and promulgated pursuant to the 
statutory exception in 10 U.S.C.  sec.  1589(b).

2. The regulation noted above permits three other exceptions not 
applicable here that permit DOD employees to be reimbursed for private 
lodgings when government quarters are available.