BNUMBER: B-271337
DATE: July 1, 1996
TITLE: Howard Robinson, Jr.-Mileage-Household Goods
Shipment-Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expense/Househunting
Trip
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Howard Robinson, Jr.-Mileage-Household Goods
Shipment-Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expense/Househunting
Trip
File: B-271337
Date:July 1, 1996
DIGEST
1. A transferred employee reclaims relocation mileage based on his
odometer reading of 251 miles. The agency allowed him 174 miles based
on the standard highway mileage guide for the distance between his old
and new permanent duty stations, plus 10 percent to accommodate
necessary detours, for a total of 191 miles. The additional 60 miles
claimed may not be allowed since the employee has not satisfactorily
explained the excess mileage to the agency. 41 C.F.R. sec. 302-2.1 and
301-4.1 (1994).
2. A transferred employee, who was authorized to ship his household
goods by government bill of lading (GBL) system, reclaims
reimbursement for transporting part of his household goods to his new
duty station in his privately owned vehicle (POV) under the commuted
rate system. Once an agency determines that shipment by GBL is the
lower cost method and the employee chooses to move part of his goods
by private transportation, the employee's reimbursement is limited to
his actual expenses incurred. Since the employee's only expense was
the cost of fuel for which he has already been reimbursed on a mileage
basis for the use of his POV, which includes the cost of fuel, he has
received the maximum reimbursement authorized.
3. A transferred employee was authorized and took a 9 day
househunting trip. He was also authorized 60 days temporary quarters
subsistence expenses but was in temporary quarters only 40 days. The
agency deducted the amount reimbursed to him for his househunting trip
from the amount expended for temporary quarters. The agency action
was incorrect. Under the Federal Travel Regulation, an agency may
deduct the number of days spent househunting from the authorized
temporary quarters period, thereby reducing the number of days
available for temporary quarters. Since the total number of days
spent by the employee in temporary quarters and househunting did not
exceed the maximum temporary quarters period authorized, he may be
reimbursed the actual allowable expenses incurred for both temporary
quarters and househunting.
DECISION
Mr. Howard Robinson, an employee of the Department of Health and Human
Services, appeals that portion of our Claims Settlement, Z-2869663,
Nov. 29, 1995, disallowing him reimbursement for certain expenses
incurred incident to a permanent change of station in October 1994.
We overturn our claims settlement, in part, and sustain it, in part,
for the following reasons.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Robinson, who was stationed in Huntsville, Alabama, was
transferred to Atlanta, Georgia, effective October 30, 1994. His
travel orders authorized transportation of dependents and himself by
privately owned vehicle (POV); transportation of household goods
through use of a government bill of lading, with a period of temporary
storage, if required; subsistence expenses while occupying temporary
quarters; and a househunting trip. Following completion of his
permanent change of station and submission of his travel vouchers, the
agency disallowed part of his travel claim.
Mr. Robinson appealed that action to this Office and sought interest
on any amount that this Office authorized him to be paid. By
settlement Z-2869663, Nov. 29, 1995, we allowed his lease termination
expense, but sustained the agency disallowance of the other items,
including his claim for interest.
In his present appeal, Mr. Robinson reclaims increased travel mileage
for his one-way relocation travel based on his odometer reading of 251
miles, rather than the 191 miles allowed; transportation of part of
his household goods through use of his POV on a commuted rate basis;
and full reimbursement for both his househunting trip and his period
of temporary quarters.
OPINION
Relocation Mileage
Under subsection 301-4.1(b)(1) of the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR),[1] mileage reimbursement for use of a privately owned
automobile is based on the distances between points traveled as shown
in standard highway mileage guides, or actual miles driven as
determined by odometer readings. If odometer readings are used:
". . . Any substantial deviation from distances shown in the
standard highway mileage guides shall be explained."
We have recognized that odometer readings normally can show some
deviation from the standard highway mileage guides because of extra
miles traveled when the traveler is required to make occasional
detours for such things as meals, lodging, or possibly road
construction.[2] However, where the odometer reading deviates
substantially from the standard highway mileage guides, the excess
mileage must be explained to the satisfaction of the agency in order
for any part of the additional mileage to be reimbursed.[3]
The agency determined that the mileage from Huntsville, Alabama, to
Atlanta, Georgia, by direct route is approximately 174 miles, to which
it added 10 percent to cover any extra mileage needed, and reimbursed
Mr. Robinson 15 cents a mile for 191 miles. The employee contends
that he traveled directly from Huntsville to Atlanta and his odometer
registered 251 miles for the trip, noting that it was the same one-way
distance as his travel for his househunting trip. It is our view that
the excess 60 miles shown on his odometer constitutes a substantial
deviation from the standard highway mileage guide and that the
claimant has not satisfactorily explained the excess. Therefore, we
find no basis to allow reimbursement for the additional mileage
claimed.
Household goods shipment
Mr. Robinson's household goods were authorized to be shipped by
government bill of lading (actual expense method). The goods picked
up by the carrier weighed 8,210 pounds. According to Mr. Robinson,
there were some goods that the carrier could not transport and other
goods that the carrier recommended he transport because of its value
(computer). He loaded these and some other goods and personal effects
into his POV and transported them to his new duty station when he
performed his relocation travel. Based on weight certificates used to
establish the TARE weight of his POV (2,500 pounds) and the gross
weight of his POV (3,620 pounds), Mr. Robinson contends that he should
be reimbursed for the 1,120 pounds of household goods he transported,
on a commuted rate basis.
Shipment of an employee's household goods at government expense
incident to a permanent change of station is authorized to be
accomplished in only one of two ways. Either by the government bill
of lading system (GBL), where the government assumes responsibility of
arranging for the transportation of the goods and payment directly to
the carrier,[4] or the commuted rate system, where the employee
arranges his own household goods transportation and is reimbursed
according to the allowances prescribed in the Commuted Rate Schedule
published by the General Services Administration.[5]
Each agency must determine on a cost comparison basis whether a
transferring employee entitled to transportation of household goods
will be reimbursed under the GBL system or the commuted rate system.
When an agency determines that the GBL system is to be used to ship an
employee's household goods because it is the lower cost method and an
employee subsequently moves part of his household goods by rental
truck, trailer, or private conveyance, his/her reimbursement for that
privately arranged transportation is limited to his/her actual
expenses incurred (e.g., vehicle rental fee, materials, fuel, toll
charges, etc.),[6] not to exceed the cost which the government would
have incurred had those goods been included with the other household
goods and shipped in one lot by the GBL method.[7]
There is nothing in the present case to show that Mr. Robinson
incurred any expense for transporting approximately 1,120 pounds of
household goods in his POV, other than the cost of fuel. However,
since he already has been reimbursed mileage for use of his POV to
transport him to his new duty station, which includes, among other
factors, the cost of fuel for that purpose, he has received the
maximum reimbursement authorized under the law and regulation for the
use of his POV.
Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expenses/Househunting Trip
The regulation governing travel to seek permanent quarters is
contained in Part 302-4 of the FTR.[8] Sections 302-4.1 and 302-4.2
of the FTR[9] permit an agency to authorize a transferring employee to
perform a househunting trip at government expense, not to exceed 10
calendar days, so long as the round-trip travel is completed before
the employee reports for duty at his new duty station. In conjunction
with those provisions, the regulation governing payment of subsistence
expenses while occupying temporary quarters contained in Part 302-5 of
the FTR and provides in section 302-5.2(a)(1) thereof[10] that an
employee who is transferred shall be allowed subsistence expenses
while occupying temporary quarters for an initial period not to exceed
60 days. As a preamble, section 302-5.1 of the FTR[11] states in part
that,
". . . As a general policy, the period for temporary quarters
shall be reduced or avoided if a round trip to seek permanent
residence quarters has been made. . . . The administrative
determination as to whether the occupancy of temporary quarters
is necessary and the length of time for individual-case basis."
Mr. Robinson's travel order authorized him to take a househunting trip
for a 9 day period. Those orders also authorized him be reimbursed
for a period of temporary quarters, but without specifying the length
of the period. However, elsewhere in the file the period of temporary
quarters occupancy is shown to have been granted for 60 days (an
initial period of 30 days, plus an additional period of 30 days). The
employee actually occupied temporary quarters at his new duty station
for only 40 days and incurred reimbursable expenses totaling
$2,513.57. The agency deducted his househunting trip expenses
($616.30) from that amount and allowed him $1,897.27. That action was
taken because his travel orders stated that "[T]he value of the
househunting trip will be deducted from reimbursement for any required
period of temporary quarters."
We have interpreted the FTR as granting an agency broad discretion to
limit the period that an employee is permitted to occupy temporary
quarters and be reimbursed subsistence expenses.[12] However, the
manner in which the agency limited Mr. Robinson's reimbursement for
the combination of his authorized househunting trip and his
subsistence expense period after arriving at his new duty station
effectively nullified the expense reimbursement specifically
authorized in the FTR to employees.
When an employee is authorized both a househunting trip and a period
of temporary quarters occupancy, FTR sec. 302-5.1, quoted above, provides
that the period for temporary quarters shall be reduced or avoided.
This means that the number of days actually used for househunting are
to be subtracted from the maximum number of days authorized for
temporary quarters occupancy. R.T. Erickson, B-168358, Dec. 24, 1969.
See also, James F. Kilfoil, 67 Comp. Gen. 258 (1988). The agency here
misinterpreted the FTR by deducting the cost of the househunting trip
instead of the period of that trip.
Thus, it is our view that Mr. Robinson was incorrectly reimbursed.
His househunting trip was for a 9 day period. Since the period that
he was in temporary quarters was only 40 days, the combined 49 days of
the two allowance periods was less than the 60-days temporary quarters
period authorized. Therefore, Mr. Robinson may be reimbursed his
authorized expenses for both the 9-day househunting trip and the 40
days in temporary quarters.
/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
1. 41 C.F.R. sec. 301-4.1(b)(1) (1995).
2. Valerie McLeod, B-255806, Apr. 29, 1994.
3. Valerie McLeod, supra. See also Paul G. Thibault, 69 Comp. Gen. 72
(1989).
4. 41 C.F.R. sec. 302-8.3(b) (1995).
5. 41 C.F.R. sec. 302-8.3(a) (1995).
6. Fuller C. Jones, Jr., B-224660, Mar. 14, 1988, citing to Timothy
Shaffer, B-223607, Dec. 24, 1986.
7. 41 C.F.R. sec. 101-40.203-2(b) and (d) (1995).
8. 41 C.F.R. Part 302-4 (1995).
9. 41 C.F.R. sec. 302-4.1 and 302-4.2 (1995).
10. 41 C.F.R. sec. 302-5.2(a)(1) (1995).
11. 41 C.F.R. sec. 302-5.1 (1995).
12. Stephen P. Szarka, B-247426, June 4, 1992. See also William H.
Beavers, B-233653, Nov. 20, 1989.