Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ June 29, 2000 _________________ GSBCA 15123-RELO In the Matter of NORMAN LAHR Norman Lahr, White Sands Missile Range, NM, Claimant. Brent C. Miller, Travel Branch Chief, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Rock Island, IL, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, Mr. Norman Lahr, is an employee of the Department of Defense (DOD). He asks that we review his agency's denial of a request for reimbursement of certain expenses he incurred in conjunction with his recent permanent change of station (PCS). With the exception of one element within Mr. Lahr's claim, we find the agency determinations to be correct. Background In June 1999, orders were issued by the United States Missile Range at White Sands, New Mexico, authorizing claimant to travel from his old permanent duty station (PDS) in San Diego, California, to his new PDS at White Sands. The orders authorized him to travel to the new PDS in his privately owned vehicle (POV) and to be compensated for this transportation at a rate of fifteen cents per mile. Temporary storage of household goods was authorized for ninety days. As to the shipment of these goods, the orders stated: "Household Goods to be shipped by employee using a trailer/U-Haul. Reimbursement will be limited to the cost of shipment by Packing and Crating contract." Mr. Lahr's orders also showed an estimated amount for per diem and provided for two and one quarter days of travel time. The total estimated cost of the authorized travel and transfer was shown on the orders to be $5764.76. An attachment to the orders indicated that, of this estimated total, the cost of moving Mr. Lahr's household goods by U-Haul was estimated to be $959.92. The orders directed Mr. Lahr to present himself at the Civilian Personnel Office at White Sands at 10 a.m. on July 8, 1999. Shortly before leaving San Diego, Mr. Lahr discovered that the head-gasket in his car was in need of replacement. His original plan for moving to White Sands was to rent a small trailer for his household goods and to tow the trailer with his own car. On realizing his car was in need of repair, he decided instead to rent a small truck and car trailer to transport his household goods and car to White Sands. Before renting the truck and car trailer, however, Mr. Lahr conferred with an official in the personnel office at White Sands. He asked if he was authorized to undertake his move in this fashion. He was not given an immediate answer but, on the following day, the official with whom he had spoken the day before phoned him to say that the proposed method was acceptable as long as the cost incurred did not exceed the estimated cost as shown on Mr. Lahr's travel orders for the transportation of household goods by U-Haul. On June 26, 1999, Mr. Lahr left San Diego for White Sands. He spent the night of June 26/27 at a motel in Benson, Arizona and arrived at White Sands in the afternoon of June 27. On arrival, he registered at the White Sands Missile Range Lodge and remained there for the night of June 27/28. The following morning he paid a visit to the base housing office. There he found that suitable housing was immediately available. He, therefore, moved into new quarters and returned the rented truck and trailer all on that same day. In mid July 1999, Mr. Lahr submitted a claim for the following expenses: Hotel/Motel $ 79.77 U-Haul Truck/Trailer $740.00 Gasoline $122.50 ---------- Total $942.27 The claim was returned without processing by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). A DFAS official explained that weight tickets for the U-Haul truck (empty and full) were required before action could be taken on the claim. Mr. Lahr's personnel office replied to DFAS that the claimant had no weight tickets and that he had not been advised that they would be needed to get reimbursement for moving his household goods. The personnel office, therefore, asked instead that Mr. Lahr simply be reimbursed for his actual costs. DFAS ultimately determined that Mr. Lahr was entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $581.55. Discussion Mr. Lahr bases his claim on the uncontested fact that he was advised by the White Sands personnel office that he would be reimbursed for all expenses if he kept them below the total estimated cost of moving his household goods by U-Haul. Unfortunately, the matter is not that simple. Mr. Lahr, as a civilian employee of the Federal Government, is subject to the provisions of law governing the travel and transfer of employees and, as a DOD employee, he is also subject to provisions of the Department's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Any reimbursement for expenses incurred in conjunction with his transfer must be in accordance with those statutes and regulations. It is well established that, absent a specific provision in statute or regulation which might permit it under certain circumstances, neither an agency nor this Board has the authority to waive the applicability of those statutes or regulations for any individual federal employee who is subject to them. Tanya Cantrell, GSBCA 15191-RELO, 00-1 BCA 30,894; James F. Meyer, GSBCA 14939-RELO, 99-2 BCA 30,490; Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721, 99-1 BCA 30,164 (1998). Neither can these statutes or regulations be waived simply because an employee has relied in good faith on the incorrect advice of a fellow Government employee. In such situations, the Government still may not make payment in violation of statute or regulation. Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996) (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)). While it may seem unfair that a claimant cannot be paid money which agency employees assured him would be forthcoming, nevertheless, it must be recognized that the overriding concern in such cases is the protection of the taxpayer interest in not having unlawful disbursement made from public funds. See Patricia A. Tobin, GSBCA 14483, 98-1 BCA 29,663. The report submitted by DFAS in this case reveals that payment of Mr. Lahr's claim, as presented, would be in violation of certain provisions of the JTR. Under JTR C11000, an employee transferred in the interest of the Government may be authorized to have a POV transported at Government expense, provided that the old and new duty stations are both within the continental United States (CONUS). To take advantage of this provision, however, an employee must be given specific authorization and such authorization must be supported by a determination that transporting the POV for the employee is advantageous and economical to the Government. DFAS quite properly refuses to pay the cost of renting a car trailer to transport Mr. Lahr's POV from San Diego to White Sands. Mr. Lahr lacks the authorization required under the JTR to recover this expense. Mr. Lahr's orders did not authorize him to ship his POV, but rather to use it as the means of transporting him and a trailer containing his household goods. Furthermore, DFAS points out that, in Mr. Lahr's case, the circumstances were not those which might otherwise have supported a determination that shipment of his car would be advantageous and economical to the Government. The head-gasket problem arose in advance of his departure from San Diego on June 26th and his date for reporting at his new PDS was not until July 8. The trip itself to White Sands took less than two days. Nothing in the record suggests that it was to the Government's advantage or interest to have Mr. Lahr leave San Diego before making the necessary repairs or that the delay occasioned by the need for repairs would have made it impossible for him to present himself at White Sands by July 8. In considering Mr. Lahr's claim for the cost of renting a truck, DFAS has allowed the basic cost of renting the truck (calculated to be $383.04) but has disallowed his claim of $122.50 for gasoline for the truck and $70.00 for insurance. In disallowing the claim for insurance, DFAS cites JTR C2102-D as prohibiting reimbursement for insurance for rented vehicles. As to the actual cost of gasoline, DFAS does not consider this to be a separately reimbursable item in view of its decision to allow Mr. Lahr the transportation cost to which he would have been entitled had he actually made the trip to White Sands driving his own vehicle. This amounts to $109.65 (731 miles at $0.15 per miles). Under the circumstances, we consider this to be a fair settlement and will not disturb it. In his original claim Mr. Lahr made no claim for per diem. Instead, he sought only the cost of lodging for the nights of June 26/27 and June 27/28. Nevertheless, in accordance with JTR C4553-D.2.e., DFAS has allowed Mr. Lahr an additional $45, which represents 75% of his meals and incidental expenses (M&IE) for June 26, the day of departure from his old PDS, and the same for the next day, June 27, the day of arrival at his new PDS. The agency has also paid Mr. Lahr $44.77, which is his actual cost of lodging for the night of June 26/27. However, it has denied his claim of $35, which is his actual cost for lodging for the night of June 27/28. It is not altogether clear why the agency has refused to reimburse the claimant for the cost of lodging at White Sands. Presumably it is because Mr. Lahr's orders did not specifically authorize him to obtain lodging on the day his travel ended as required under JTR C4553-D.2.c(4). Nevertheless, we do not view the absence of this specific authorization as fatal to Mr. Lahr's claim for the cost of lodging for the night of June 27/28. His orders did authorize reimbursement of temporary quarters and subsistence expenses (TQSE) for sixty days. JTR C13215-D.2.a. provides that, for an employee on en route travel for more than twenty-four hours, the TQSE period begins "at the beginning of the calendar day immediately following the calendar day that en route travel per diem ends." Since the cost of the major portion of Mr. Lahr's stay at the White Sands Missile Range Lodge on the night of June 27/28 (starting at midnight) qualifies as a reimbursable TQSE, we conclude that the agency should pay him the entire charge of $35. To pay the employee anything less would, in our opinion, thwart the intent of the ordering official who, in authorizing TQSE, obviously recognized that the employee upon arrival at his new PDS would need lodging for the evening of the day on which his en route travel ended. Aside from this award of an additional $35 for lodging, we affirm the agency determinations regarding all other aspects of Mr. Lahr's claim. ________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge