BNUMBER:  B-271190
DATE:  July 17, 1996
TITLE:  Sgt. Douglas J. Wortham-Waiver Request

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

Matter of:Sgt. Douglas J. Wortham-Waiver Request

File:     B-271190

Date:July 17, 1996

DIGEST

A member on a permanent change of station move erroneously received 
travel advances for per diem.  Because the member was misinformed 
concerning his entitlement to per diem and spent the erroneous 
payments in reliance on the misinformation, waiver under 32 U.S.C.  sec.  
716 is appropriate, but only for amounts spent on goods and services 
for which per diem may properly be spent.

DECISION

This decision is in response to a request from Sergeant (Sgt.) Douglas 
J. Wortham, a member of the United States Army National Guard, for 
reconsideration of our Claims Group's partial denial of his request 
for waiver of his debt under 32 U.S.C.  sec.  716.  Sgt. Wortham was 
erroneously given travel advances from March 1995, through May 1995, 
incident to a permanent change of station (PCS) move.  For the reasons 
discussed below, we affirm our Claims Group's Settlement, but we 
increase the amount waived from $1,801.82 to $1,965.99.

On February 24, 1995, Sgt. Wortham received orders assigning him to 
Active Duty Special Work during the period March 6, 1995, through 
August 31, 1995.  Sgt. Wortham was incorrectly informed by finance 
personnel that he was entitled to per diem, and from March 1995 
through May 1995, he received travel advances for per diem totaling 
$9,000, all of which he expended.  On May 15, 1995, Sgt. Wortham was 
notified that he had not been entitled to per diem because he was on a 
PCS move and that the travel advances had been made in error.

Our Claims Group waived $1,801.82, but denied waiver of the remaining 
amount, $7,198.18, on the basis that there was no indication that this 
amount had been spent on items that would have been authorized had 
Sgt. Wortham actually been entitled to receive per diem.

We agree that a partial waiver is appropriate, but we increase the 
amount waived by $164.17. 

Pursuant to 32 U.S.C.  sec.  716, the Comptroller General may waive a claim 
of the United States arising out of an erroneous payment of pay or 
allowances, including travel allowances, the collection of which would 
be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of 
the United States.  The Comptroller General, however, may not waive a 
claim if in his opinion there exists any indication of fault, fraud, 
misrepresentation or lack of good faith on the part of the member.

Travel advances are not meant to represent a final payment to which a 
traveler is entitled.  Travelers who receive advance travel funds are 
on notice that they are entitled to be reimbursed only for legally 
authorized expenditures.  If, during travel, a member does not spend 
the amount advanced to him on authorized expenses, he must return the 
balance.  Thus, in adjudicating a waiver involving a travel advance, 
the Comptroller General has held that expenses incurred as a result of 
an erroneous travel advance fall under the statutory waiver authority 
to the extent the travel advance was made to cover the expenses 
erroneously authorized and the member actually spent the advance in 
reliance on the erroneous authorization.  See John P. Spanik, 
B-247872, Sept. 25, 1992; and Patricia J. Youmans, B-251865, Apr. 28, 
1994.

In the present case, Sgt. Wortham relied on erroneous information in 
accepting the advance and there are no indications of fault, fraud, 
misrepresentation or lack of good faith on his part. He submitted an 
itemized list of expenses to account for the travel advances he 
received.  The Claims Group properly approved for waiver the $1,801.82 
which Sgt. Wortham spent in Virginia for rent, natural gas, 
electricity, and plane fare.  It is our view that $60.46 spent for 
telephone service ($200.33 in phone bills minus installation fee and 
long-distance charges) may properly be waived, as well as $103.71 
which appears to be for shipment of belongings to Sgt. Wortham.  See 
Tita D. Corpuz and John R. Fears, B-256576, Jan. 17, 1996.   

There is no basis, however, for waiving that portion of his debt, 
amounting to $7,034.01, that was spent on items such as family 
expenses in Minnesota and automobile repairs that would not have been 
authorized had Sgt. Wortham actually been entitled to per diem.[1]  

The Claims Group's Settlement is affirmed, but the amount waived is 
increased to $1,965.99.

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

1. We note that Sergeant Wortham did not include in his list of 
expenses any amounts for food or gasoline.  If he can substantiate any 
amounts he spent for those items or for incidental expenses allowable 
under the Joint Federal Travel Regulations, he should submit them to 
the service.  Any amounts accepted as appropriate expenses may be 
deducted from Sergeant Wortham's debt.