BNUMBER:  B-270475
DATE:  June 26, 1996
TITLE:  Senior Airman Darrin L. Converse, USAF-Reimbursement of
Travel Expenses

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

Matter of:Senior Airman Darrin L. Converse, USAF-Reimbursement of 
          Travel Expenses

File:     B-270475

Date:June 26, 1996

DIGEST

A member's entitlements under travel orders vest when the travel is 
performed and the travel orders may not be amended retroactively so as 
to increase or decrease entitlements under the orders except to 
correct an error that is clear on the face of the orders.  Therefore, 
where a member's orders provided for his billeting in government 
quarters at his temporary duty station but erroneously directed him 
not to use government mess, and he complied with the orders, the 
orders may not be retroactively amended to deprive him of 
reimbursement for the expense of meals on the basis that the directive 
not to use government mess was erroneous, since the error was not 
clear on the face of the orders.

DECISION

This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement[1] which 
denied the claim of Senior Airman Darrin L. Converse, USAF, for 
reimbursement of travel expenses he incurred while on temporary duty 
(TDY).  For the reasons explained below, we reverse the Claims Group's 
settlement and allow the claim.

Airman Converse received orders issued August 9, 1994, for travel from 
Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, to perform 90 days of TDY at Howard 
Air Force Base, Panama, beginning August 30, 1994.  The orders stated 
that he was to be billetted on base and receive per diem at the on 
base rate, but they also stated that "Use of available Government mess 
will adversely affect the mission."  Airman Converse questioned the 
latter statement of the orders at the finance office at his permanent 
duty station before departing on TDY, and he was assured that he was 
to procure his meals off base.  The orders also provided that mission 
requirements precluded use of a government charge card for charges or 
automatic teller machine cash advances, but the orders authorized a 
travel advance.  Prior to departure, Airman Converse was provided an 
advance of $2,150 to cover the first 45 days of TDY, which apparently 
was computed at 80 percent of the rate for a member billetted in 
government quarters and procuring meals off base in the area of his 
TDY.  Airman Converse complied with his orders, and after the first 45 
days sought a further advance from the finance office at Howard Air 
Force Base.  Instead of providing the advance, the finance office 
personnel instructed Airman Converse to use his government charge card 
to cover his expenses for the remainder of the TDY, which he did.

Upon completion of the TDY and return to his permanent duty station, 
Airman Converse filed his travel voucher and was initially advised by 
finance office personnel that he was due approximately $3,980.  
However, before payment was made to him, the Air Force organization 
that had issued his orders determined that the statement in the orders 
directing him to mess off base had been included erroneously, and 
amended orders were issued on December 5, 1994, to delete that 
provision.  The effect of the amendment was to retroactively reduce 
his per diem entitlement from $5,247 to $1,980.  Airman Converse 
claims reimbursement on the basis of the August 1994 orders as 
originally issued, arguing in effect that before he departed on TDY he 
was assured that the provision in question was correct, and he relied 
on the orders in good faith, incurring expenses for which he 
subsequently is being denied reimbursement.

The Defense Finance and Accounting Center (DFAS) forwarded the claim 
to our Claims Group for settlement in view of the doubt as to the 
effect of the amendment to the orders.  In doing so, DFAS recommended 
payment of the claim.

In denying the claim, the Claims Group recognized the long standing 
rule that a member's entitlements under travel orders vest at the time 
the travel is performed and that orders cannot be amended 
retroactively to increase or decrease the member's rights under the 
orders except to correct an error that is clear on the face of the 
original order, or where all the facts and circumstances surrounding 
the issuance of the orders clearly demonstrate that some provision 
that was previously determined and definitely intended had been 
inadvertently omitted in their preparation.  Sergeant Paul D. Wilson, 
USMC, 65 Comp. Gen. 884 (1986); and Lieutenant Colonel Mark H. 
Magnussen, USA, B-191681, Nov. 21, 1978.  It was the Claims Group's 
view that the directions in the orders to lodge in the government 
billet but not to eat in the government mess presented a conflict of 
directions that was plain evidence of error in writing the orders, and 
thus constituted the type of situation that can be retroactively 
corrected by amendment of the orders.

We disagree with the Claims Group in these circumstances.  We note 
that under the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), paragraph 
U4400, the determinations to be made by the authorizing official 
concerning use of government quarters and use of government mess by a 
member on TDY are two separate matters, and the use of one is not 
necessarily contingent upon the use of the other.  JFTR, paras. 
U4400-A and U4400-B.  As to government mess, the regulations provide 
that it is to be used to the maximum extent practical, but its use is 
not considered practical in various specified circumstances, including 
when the authorizing official determines the use of the mess would 
adversely affect mission performance.  JFTR, para. U4400-B.  Thus, 
while the directions to use government billeting but not to use 
government mess apparently were sufficiently unusual that they caused 
Airman Converse to question the matter at the finance office prior to 
departure on TDY, they were not clear evidence of error on the face of 
the orders.[2]  Considering that Airman Converse was advised that he 
was to eat off base and was provided a travel advance for the first 45 
days consistent with that advice, his action in complying was not 
unreasonable.  In addition, although his orders stated that mission 
requirements precluded use of his government credit card, we do not 
find it unreasonable for him to have used the credit card to cover 
additional expenses after being directed to do so at the Fort Howard 
finance office in lieu of providing him an additional travel advance 
to cover expenses for the second 45 days.[3]

In view of the above, we find that Airman Converse's entitlements to 
per diem based on his orders as originally written vested at the time 
the travel was performed and the expenses incurred, and the subsequent 
amendment to the orders after the travel was performed may not be 
given effect to reduce his entitlement.  Accordingly, the settlement 
is reversed and his claim should be paid, if otherwise correct.

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

1. Z-2869547, Sept. 25, 1995.

2. The record does not disclose the details of Airman Converse's 
mission, and thus we have no basis to comment on whether such a 
determination by the order issuing authority may have been inherently 
questionable.  However, such a determination is a matter for the 
service to make, not us, and the service has recommended payment of 
the claim on the basis that Airman Converse properly complied with his 
orders.

3. Neither the record presented nor our review of the JFTR provisions 
disclosed a prohibition on reimbursement of expenses otherwise 
properly charged on a government credit card in these circumstances.