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.