Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________ January 18, 2000 ___________________ GSBCA 15110-RELO In the Matter of RICKY E. WOOD Ricky E. Wood, Morgan, UT, Claimant. Thomas B. Dunroe, Chief, Affirmative Employment Section B, Headquarters, Ogden Air Logistics Center, Department of the Air Force, Hill Air Force Base, UT, appearing the Department of Defense. PARKER, Board Judge. In December 1998, the Department of the Air Force transferred Ricky Wood from Okinawa, Japan, to Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Mr. Wood was authorized to be reimbursed for sixty days of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE). The sixty-day period began to run on December 20. Mr. Wood moved to permanent quarters on February 25, 1999, and requested an extension of the TQSE period until that date. Mr. Wood had delayed moving into permanent quarters because he did not know that his household goods had arrived from Japan. When he finally called someone on February 17, Mr. Wood was told that his household goods had arrived from Japan on January 20. He then arranged for delivery at the earliest possible date, which turned out to be February 25. The Air Force denied Mr. Wood s request for an extension of the TQSE period because it determined that Mr. Wood should have contacted the Traffic Management Office to inquire about his goods. According to the Air Force, Mr. Wood was told in advance that he should do this and was given an estimated time for the arrival of the household goods. The Air Force states that it is the employee s responsibility to arrange for delivery of the goods because only he or she knows when his or her permanent quarters are available for occupancy. Mr. Woods believes that the Air Force should have contacted him when his household goods arrived and has asked the board to review the Air Force s determination not to extend the TQSE period to February 25. Mr. Wood has also requested that the Board review the Air Force s determination to reimburse him at the rate of $80 per day, which Mr. Wood believes is below the applicable per diem rate for his locality in Davis County, Utah. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Air Force properly denied both claims. Discussion The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) provide that the initial sixty-day period for TQSE may be extended for up to an additional sixty days where the agency determines that there are compelling reasons (due to circumstances beyond the employee s control) for the continued temporary quarters occupancy. JTR C13115-B.1 (Apr. 1, 1998). Here, the Air Force correctly determined that Mr. Wood s need for continued occupancy of temporary quarters was not beyond his control. Under any circumstances, Mr. Wood s decision to delay occupancy of his permanent quarters past the TQSE period without even calling to ascertain the status of his household goods was not reasonable. Where, as here, an employee has been given an estimated date for the arrival of his household goods and counseled to contact the Travel Management Office to arrange for their delivery, the decision is even less reasonable. Although it would have been nice if the Air Force had called Mr. Wood when his household goods arrived in Utah, the ultimate reason for continued occupancy of temporary quarters was within Mr. Wood s control. The Air Force calculation of Mr. Wood s daily TQSE reimbursement was also correct, although we certainly can understand Mr. Wood s confusion. The JTR sections dealing with this matter are not a model of clarity. TQSE is usually paid as an actual expense reimbursement based upon the standard CONUS (continental United States) per diem rate when temporary quarters are occupied in a CONUS location. JTR C13105 (Aug. 1, 1998).[foot #] 1 It is intended to reimburse employees for subsistence expenses incurred (up to the standard CONUS rate) when they and/or their dependents must occupy temporary quarters. Id. As Mr. Wood found out, finding the standard CONUS per diem rate is somewhat of an adventure. JTR paragraph C13135 (Apr. 1, 1998) refers the reader to Appendix D for the applicable per diem rate. Appendix D (Oct. 1, 1998) contains a chart which has an entry labeled CONUS. CONUS has a per diem rate of $80, but it is described as ALL PLACES NOT LISTED. The chart then goes on to list different per diem rates for scores of localities within CONUS, including Davis County, Utah, where Mr. Wood stayed. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The JTR paragraphs dealing with TQSE and the standard CONUS rate have changed several times since Mr. Wood was transferred. Our discussion references the language in effect at the time of Mr. Wood s transfer. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 3 To clear up the confusion, one must refer to Appendix A of the JTR, which is not referenced in the paragraphs dealing with TQSE. At the time of Mr. Wood s transfer, Appendix A (Dec. 1, 1998) defined the term Standard CONUS Rate as: the per diem rate prescribed for any location within CONUS that isn t included in one of the defined localities or areas specified in Appendix D. The standard CONUS rate is also the per diem rate prescribed for all locations within CONUS when permanent duty travel is involved. Thus, Appendix A explains that where permanent duty travel is involved, the CONUS rate in Appendix D for ALL PLACED NOT LISTED is the rate for all locations within CONUS, whether listed or not. This designation of one rate for all transfer-related CONUS travel is consistent with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which is the legislative rule issued pursuant to a delegation from the Congress that the JTR attempts to implement and explain. Lorrie L. Wood, GSBCA 13705-TRAV, 97-1 BCA 28,707 (1996). Appendix A to Chapter 301 of the FTR, which contains the per diem rates set by the Administrator of General Services, lists a CONUS, standard rate of $80 ($50 for lodging and $30 for meals and incidental expenses). According to the regulation, the standard CONUS rate: (Applies to all locations within CONUS not specifically listed below or encompassed by the boundary definition of a listed point. However, the standard CONUS rate applies to all locations within CONUS, including those defined below, for certain relocation subsistence allowances. See parts 302-2, 302-4, and 302-5 of this subtitle.) 41 CFR ch. 301 app. A (1998). Part 302-5 of the subtitle, referred to in the quotation above, contains the regulations dealing with TQSE. Thus, Appendix A makes it relatively clear that, for purposes of TQSE, there is one standard CONUS rate and that, at the time Mr. Wood was transferred, that rate was $80 per day. See also Elizabeth Lynn Taylor, GSBCA 15128-RELO (Jan. 11, 2000). The Air Force was therefore correct in using the standard CONUS rate, rather than the locality rate for Davis County, Utah. 4 Decision For the reasons discussed above, the claim is denied. __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge