BNUMBER:  B-260999
DATE:  October 17, 1996
TITLE:  Donna K. Buford

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

Matter of:Donna K. Buford

File:     B-260999

Date:October 17, 1996

DIGEST

The employee's reclaim voucher for three nights' noncommercial lodging 
with a friend may not be set off against the $200 advance owed by the 
employee to the agency because the employee has not submitted 
documents showing the additional expenses incurred by her hostess.  
The employee's transportation expenses incurred by commuting from the 
suburb to the temporary duty station may be set off against the $200 
advance in an amount not to exceed the expenses to which the employee 
would have been entitled had she obtained lodging in the high cost 
area.  

DECISION

This advance decision is made at the request of Ms. Willie M. King, an 
authorized certifying officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, to determine whether she may allow for setoff certain 
reclaim vouchers submitted by an employee in defense of the agency's 
efforts to collect the balance due of a $200 travel advance.  For the 
reasons stated below, the employee's reclaim voucher for three nights' 
noncommercial lodging may not be set off against the advance, but her 
transportation expenses incurred by commuting from the suburb to the 
temporary duty station may be set off against the $200 advance in an 
amount not to exceed the expenses to which the employee would have 
been entitled had she obtained lodging in the high cost area.

BACKGROUND

From May 12 through May 15, 1980, the employee, Donna K. Buford, 
traveled on temporary duty from Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D.C., 
on official business.  The employee's travel order states that she was 
authorized actual expenses at the rate of $50 per day and was 
authorized the use of taxicabs when necessary.  While on temporary 
duty in Washington, D.C., the employee stayed with a friend in a 
private home in Columbia, Maryland, for three nights and commuted to 
work by train.  She paid $90 to her host for three nights' 
accommodations and $14.90 for train transportation to commute to work 
from Columbia, Maryland, to Washington, D.C. 

The employee indicated that her stay in this home was a personal 
accommodation rather than a business arrangement and that the owner of 
the home did not rent out the room as a general practice.  According 
to the employee, $90 paid to the owner represented $30 per night and 
this amount was based on the fact that the owner incurred additional 
expenses as a result of the employee's stay, such as the owner's time 
and expense in laundering of linens and towels, increased use in 
utilities, the cost of driving the employee by privately owned vehicle 
from the private home to the train station, etc.  The employee, 
however, submitted no documentation for any of these additional 
expenses with either her original travel voucher or with her 
subsequent reclaim voucher.

The agency denied the $90 for lodging on the basis that the employee's 
per diem was limited to 40 percent of the locality rate when an 
employee obtained noncommercial lodging.  The agency denied the $14.90 
for train fare on the basis that such reimbursement was limited to the 
constructive cost of what it would have cost to commute from lodging 
in Washington, D.C., the temporary duty station, to the actual place 
of business. 

In February 1995, the employee submitted reclaim vouchers for $90 and 
$14.90, respectively.  The Director, Financial Management Division, 
requested an advance decision from our office to determine whether the 
reclaim vouchers in the amount of $104.90 could be set off against the 
$200 advance owed by the employee to the agency.  

ANALYSIS

Ms. Buford's claim accrued in May 1980 at the time of travel.  By 
statute, claims which are not received within 6 years after the date 
they first accrue, are barred.  31 U.S.C.  sec.  3702(b)(1).  However, 
under the doctrine of recoupment, the employee is not required to 
assert a claim against the United States in order to eliminate or 
reduce an indebtedness for an advance of funds under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  
5705.[1]  The defense of recoupment, which applies specifically to 
attempts by the government to collect travel advances from employees 
so long as the defense arises out of the same cause of action, is 
never time-barred.  Thomas R. Hopkins, B-195738, April 1, 1980.  See 
also 63 Comp. Gen. 462 (1984), and 58 Comp. Gen 738 (1979).  

The employee's travel order shows that the employee was authorized a 
maximum amount of $50 per day for actual subsistence expenses 
incurred, to cover lodging, meals, and incidental expenses.  The EEOC 
Travel Handbook, in effect at the time of travel, limited 
reimbursement for staying with friends or relatives to 40 percent of 
the locality rate in an actual subsistence area such as Washington, 
D.C., unless the employee submits evidence showing the additional 
expenses incurred by the host or hostess (EEOC Order 345).  Since the 
record shows that Ms. Buford was allowed $79.20 against her $200 
advance, we assume that she has been reimbursed at the 40 percent 
rate.  Since she has not submitted documentation showing additional 
expenses incurred by her hostess, she is not entitled to additional 
reimbursement for her lodging expenses.  

As for the $14.90 in train fare, the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) 
(FPMR 101-7)  para.  1-2.3 (May 1973) in effect at the time contemplated 
that a traveler will ordinarily lodge in close proximity to the 
temporary duty station.  We held, however, that when an employee, 
assigned to temporary duty, effects an overall savings in travel 
expenses by obtaining lower cost lodging and subsistence in a suburban 
location, the additional transportation costs incurred by commuting 
from the suburb may be reimbursed in an amount not to exceed the 
expenses to which she would have been entitled had she obtained 
lodging in the high cost area.  Roland E. Groder, B-192540, April 6, 
1979.  

It is evident that the employee saved government funds by staying in 
the suburbs and that she would have incurred higher lodging and 
transportation costs had she stayed in Washington, D.C.  Therefore, we 
believe that she is entitled to be reimbursed for her commuting costs.  
In addition to the $14.90 train fare, Ms. Buford incurred $3.20 in 
metro fares.  Therefore, the amount of $18.10 may be set off against 
her outstanding travel advance.

As for the employee's claim that she was erroneously advised of the 
agency policy concerning noncommercial travel, it is unfortunate when 
employees receive erroneous advice or are erroneously authorized 
certain allowances which in fact are not reimbursable.  However, it is 
a well settled rule of law that the government is not estopped by the 
erroneous advice of its employees, a principle that has been affirmed 
by the U.S. Supreme Court.  56 Comp. Gen 131 (1976), and Schweiker v. 
Hansen, 450 U.S. 785 (1981). 

Accordingly, the employee's commuting expenses of $18.10 may be set 
off against the balance of the $200 advance owed by the employee to 
the agency, but she is not entitled to setoff the additional $90 she 
reclaims for amounts paid to her hostess for lodging at her home.  

/s/Seymour Efros
Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. An advance of funds is, in effect, a loan obligation, based on the 
employee's prospective entitlement to reimbursement for allowable 
expenses after they are incurred.  An advance does not necessarily 
guarantee that the employee will ultimately be reimbursed for all 
expenses incurred.