BNUMBER:  B-262009
DATE:  December 5, 1995
TITLE:  Gail Braten

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

Matter of:Gail Braten

File:     B-262009

Date:     December 5, 1995

DIGEST

An employee assigned to a temporary duty assignment originally was not 
authorized to rent a car and relied on public transportation to 
commute to and from work and for personal travel.  In the third month 
of her detail, she requested the use of a rental car, because her 
spouse and children needed transportation for doctor's appointments 
and for grocery shopping.  The agency amended her travel orders 
accordingly.  The employee continued to use public transportation to 
commute to and from work and used the rental vehicle for the reasons 
stated.  Although the district finance officer at the employee's 
permanent duty station denied her claim for the rental car, the claim 
is payable.  Travel orders may not be amended retroactively to deny 
reimbursement unless the orders are clearly erroneous.  The orders 
here were not clearly erroneous since an agency regulation permits 
employees for whom a rental car has been authorized to use the vehicle 
to travel to places "for the sustenance, comfort, or health of the 
employee . . . ."  Joint Travel Regulation Vol. II, para. C2102(F).

DECISION

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers asks whether Ms. Gail Braten's claims 
for a rental car and garage and parking fees, which she incurred while 
on a temporary duty assignment, are payable.  The answer is yes.

BACKGROUND

Both Ms. Braten and her spouse are employees stationed in the agency's 
Anchorage, Alaska office.  The agency selected both of them to 
participate in Executive Development assignments, which required about 
6 months of temporary duty assignments at its Washington, D.C. 
headquarters building from November 1993 until April 30, 1994.  
Accordingly, the agency issued each of them separate travel orders.  
Ms. Braten and her spouse obtained lodgings on a monthly rental basis, 
and each of the them claimed half the rent on their individual 
vouchers.  The couple took their children, then ages 1 and 3, with 
them to Washington.

The original travel orders for Ms. Braten and her spouse did not 
authorize the use of a rental car.  The couple used the subway to 
commute to and from their temporary lodgings and the agency's 
headquarters.  Early in 1994, Ms. Braten's spouse and children needed 
transportation to doctor's appointments and, she states, using the 
subway and taxis to do so proved difficult because the harsh winter 
weather disrupted the public transportation.  She also states that 
grocery shopping became very difficult because of the weather.

Ms. Braten advised the agency's Chief of Travel and Transportation of 
her family's situation, who informed her that she could be authorized 
a rental car.  Subsequently, Ms. Braten asked her supervisor to 
approve the use of a rental car.  The supervisor supported the request 
and requested further approval from his supervisor, who also concurred 
in the request.  Accordingly, the agency amended Ms. Braten's travel 
orders on February 17, 1994, to authorize the use of a rental car.

Ms. Braten continued to use the subway to commute to and from work 
because of parking costs.  She used the rental car primarily around 
the area of her lodgings.  She continued to use the rental car until 
her assignment ended the following April.  Subsequently, she claimed 
$1,860.92, for the cost of the rental car and $165.66, for parking 
expenses near her lodgings.

The Alaska district finance and accounting officer who reviewed Ms. 
Braten's vouchers denied her claims based on an agency regulation that 
states, in part, "Personal preference or minor inconvenience will not 
be the basis for authorizing or approving the use of a special 
conveyance instead of a cheaper mode of transportation."  Joint Travel 
Regulation (JTR) Vol. II, para. C2102(A).  The chief of the 
headquarters finance and accounting division questions the denial 
based on another agency regulation, which provides:

     "When a commercially rented or leased vehicle is used by an 
     employee for official travel, its use shall be limited to 
     official purposes which include transportation between places 
     where an employee's presence is required incident to official 
     business; between such places and places of temporary lodging 
     when public transportation is unavailable or its use is 
     impractical and between either of the foregoing places and to 
     places necessary to obtain suitable meals, drugstores, barber 
     shops, places of worship, cleaning establishments, and similar 
     places required for the sustenance, comfort, or health of the 
     employee to foster the continued efficient performance of 
     Government business."  JTR para. C2102(F).

To resolve the matter, the chief has requested an advance decision 
from this office.

OPINION

The crucial fact here is that Ms. Braten did obtain an amendment to 
her travel orders to authorize the use of the rental car, and travel 
orders should not be amended retroactively to deny reimbursement 
unless the orders are clearly erroneous.  Peter R. Maloney, B-229466, 
Dec. 5, 1988.[1]

In this case, we cannot say that the agency's decision to approve the 
use of the rental car was clearly erroneous.  Although JTR para. 
C2101(A) prohibits the agency from authorizing the use of a rental car 
solely for "personal preference or minor inconvenience," JTR para. 
C2103(F) authorizes the use of rental cars by employees engaged in 
temporary duty travel when public transportation is unavailable or 
impractical "for the sustenance, comfort, or health of the employee."  
Therefore, even though a rental car may not be necessary for commuting 
to and from the employee's temporary duty station, an agency may 
justify the use of a rental car for the types of local travel 
requested here.

Therefore, the claims for the use of the rental car are payable.  The 
claims for parking and garage fees also are payable.  The JTR 
specifically authorizes reimbursement for these expenses when a rental 
car is authorized.  JTR para. C2102(C)(3) and (4).

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

1. Maloney, supra, involved a uniformed military member.  Although 
uniformed members are subject to a different set of agency 
regulations, the civilian and military regulations are substantially 
the same on this matter.