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.