BNUMBER:  B-265609
DATE:  January 26, 1996
TITLE:  Specialist Michael Crocco--Claim for Travel
Allowances

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

Matter of:Specialist Michael Crocco--Claim for Travel Allowances

File:     B-265609

Date:   January 26, 1996

DIGEST

A reservist who was called to temporary active duty received daily 
travel allowances while he commuted to his duty site.  In accordance 
with paragraph U7150 of volume 1 of the Joint Federal Travel 
Regulations (JFTR), the allowances were terminated.  The fact that the 
reservist was told by the commander of his duty site that his 
allowances would continue does not provide a basis for payment 
contrary to the JFTR, since the government is not liable for erroneous 
information given by its officers, agents, or employees.

DECISION

This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement[1] which 
denied the claim of Specialist Michael Crocco for per diem and travel 
allowances for the period from November 1, 1992, until May 14, 1993.  
We affirm the Claim's Group settlement.

Under orders dated July 30, 1992, Specialist Crocco, a reservist, was 
called to active duty during Operation Desert Shield/Storm at a site 
approximately 48 miles from his home.  The orders stated that neither 
a privately-owned vehicle nor a rental car was authorized.  Government 
quarters and mess were to be used when available.  The orders were 
originally for 47 days but were extended, and Specialist Crocco 
ultimately served from August 10, 1992, until May 14, 1993.  
Government quarters and mess were not available, and Specialist Crocco 
commuted daily from his home to his duty site.  Through October 1992 
he received a daily mileage allowance as well as per diem for two 
meals.  A message dated October 1992 terminated payment of per diem 
and daily mileage effective November 1, 1992.  Specialist Crocco 
states that he was told by the commander of the duty site that he 
should continue commuting and that he would eventually be reimbursed 
for mileage and meals in the same way that he was paid before November 
1, 1992.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) denied Specialist 
Crocco's claim for mileage allowance and per diem.  He argued that he 
continued to commute because the commander of his duty site instructed 
him to do so.  He also argued that the mileage and per diem he had 
been receiving amounted to less than the cost of full per diem for 
hotel accommodations and meals.  Finally, he argued that his car was 
necessary for reaching the duty site and obtaining meals.

The message of October 1992 quoted part of paragraph U7150 of the 
JFTR, which states that a member called to active duty with pay who 
commutes daily between his home and his place of active duty is not 
entitled to per diem or mileage allowances for his daily commute when 
the installation commander determines that his home and duty station 
are within a reasonable commuting distance.  In that instance he would 
be entitled to a mileage allowance for only one round-trip between the 
two and a total of two meals.  He could receive allowances for those 
nights when he was required to remain at his duty station overnight if 
government quarters were unavailable.  See 1 JFTR para. U7150-A1(b).

Specialist Crocco's original orders were for temporary active duty for 
a period of 47 days.  The orders were written to allow him to remain 
at the duty site in receipt of per diem for lodging and meals if those 
were not provided.  Since government quarters and mess were not 
available, he was allowed to commute.  Taking into consideration the 
provisions of 1 JFTR para. U7150-A1(b), it is unclear why Specialist 
Crocco was receiving allowances for his daily commute, and as of 
November 1, 1992, those allowances were terminated.

While Specialist Crocco acted in accordance with the instructions of 
his commander, the JFTR do not allow payment of travel allowances to a 
member in his situation.  The fact that his commander indicated to him 
that he would be reimbursed does not provide a basis for payment, 
since the government is not liable for the erroneous information given 
by its officers, agents, or employees.  See Adam L. Lucas, B-247071, 
May 28, 1992.  The fact that the allowances he had been receiving were 
less than the per diem he could have received for meals and lodging 
does not provide a basis for payment.  Likewise, the fact that using 
his car was, in his opinion, necessary also does not provide a basis 
for payment, because the car was not authorized in his orders.

Accordingly, the claim must be denied.  We affirm the Claims Group's 
settlement.

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

1. Z-2869422, dated June 21, 1995.