BNUMBER:  B-270134
DATE:  May 7, 1996
TITLE:  Major Norman R. LeClair-Claim for Travel and Transportation
Allowances

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

Matter of:Major Norman R. LeClair-Claim for Travel and Transportation 
          Allowances

File:     B-270134

Date:May 7, 1996

DIGEST

When a member is transferred overseas and is not able to transport a 
privately owned vehicle (POV) to his duty station, his travel 
entitlement for recovering the POV upon return to the United States is 
limited to allowances based on travel from the designated port of 
debarkation serving his new station to the new station.

DECISION

This is in response to a request for an advance decision regarding the 
claim of Major Norman R. LeClair, USAF, for additional travel and 
transportation allowances incident to a permanent change of station.  
We deny his claim.

When Major LeClair was transferred to Canberra, Australia, he was not 
able to ship a privately owned vehicle (POV) there.  He stored two 
POVs at personal expense at Granite City, Illinois, near St. Louis, 
which was the port nearest his previous duty station.  After serving 
in Australia, Major LeClair was transferred to Hill Air Force Base, 
Utah.  Upon return in January 1995, Major LeClair and his family 
landed at Los Angeles, California, the designated port of debarkation 
for Hill.  Major LeClair obtained air transportation for himself and 
his family to St. Louis with government travel requests, and he and 
his wife then drove the POVs to Utah.  Major LeClair was paid the 
amount of travel and transportation allowances he would have received 
if he and his wife had driven directly from Los Angeles to Hill Air 
Force Base, minus the airfare from Los Angeles to St. Louis.  He 
claims travel and transportation allowances for the distance he and 
his wife actually drove, from St. Louis to Hill, without reduction for 
the airfare from Los Angeles to St. Louis.

When a member makes a permanent change of station move, he is entitled 
to travel allowances between his old and new duty stations.  See 
Volume 1 of the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), paragraph 
U5100.  When he arrives in the United States from an overseas duty 
station, he is entitled to travel and transportation allowances from 
the designated aerial port of debarkation for his new duty station to 
that duty station.  1 JFTR para. U5116.  If he drives a POV to the new 
duty station, he is entitled to a mileage allowance in lieu of 
transportation (MALT) plus a flat per diem for the distance between 
the designated port and the new duty station.  1 JFTR para. U5105-B.  
If a dependent drives a second POV there, a second MALT may be 
payable.  1 JFTR para. U5205-A.

In Bruce L. Harjung, USMC, 62 Comp. Gen. 651 (1983), we dealt with a 
Marine officer who was ordered to make a permanent change of station 
from Okinawa to Camp Pendleton, California.  His family and POV were 
in Virginia, and a Marine Corp message purported to allow him to 
select an alternate aerial port of debarkation in order to pick up his 
POV.  The message also provided for MALT plus a flat per diem from the 
alternate port to the new duty station.  He therefore claimed his 
airfare from Los Angeles to St. Louis and MALT plus a flat per diem 
for constructive travel from St. Louis to Camp Pendleton.  We said 
that his travel entitlements were governed by the Joint Travel 
Regulations (predecessor to the JFTR) and that his travel entitlement 
for himself was limited to allowances based on travel from his old 
station to his new station.  We said that allowing a member to select 
an alternate port of embarkation would be tantamount to circuitous 
travel, which is not allowed.  Upon his arrival in the United States, 
we allowed reimbursement for constructive travel only from the 
designated port to Camp Pendleton.

Major LeClair's situation is similar to that in 62 Comp. Gen. 651, 
supra.  His entitlement was limited to travel from his old station in 
Australia to his new station in the United States.  According to 1 
JFTR para. U5116, after he reached the United States, he was entitled 
to allowances based on travel between the designated port of 
debarkation for his new duty station and the new station-i.e., from 
Los Angeles to Hill Air Force Base.  According to 1 JFTR para. 
U5105-B, he was entitled to MALT plus flat per diem for constructive 
travel between those points.  Since the route he took, Los Angeles to 
St. Louis to Hill, involved an alternate port and a greater distance 
than the direct route from the designated port, the cost of the 
airfare to St. Louis was properly deducted from his entitlement, and 
the MALT and the number of days of travel were based on constructive 
travel from Los Angeles to Hill.  See also Air Force Regulation 
177-103, December 31, 1991, para. 5-7.  We are aware of no further 
entitlement under the JFTR in this situation.  We contacted the Per 
Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee with regard to 
Major LeClair's claim and were informally advised that the method used 
by the Air Force to calculate his travel and transportation allowances 
was correct.

Major LeClair contends that his claim should be allowed because the 
JFTR do not cover his situation.  His claim is covered, however, by 
Air Force regulation 177-103, supra, which limits reimbursement to 
MALT and flat per diem for travel from the designated port to the new 
duty station and requires the member to reimburse the government for 
any excess cost of transportation provided.  We have no authority to 
extend the entitlements provided in the JFTR; even if we had such 
authority, we would not exercise it in this case, given the Air Force 
regulation cited.

Accordingly, Major LeClair's claim is denied.

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