Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                      _____________________



                        February 28, 2005

                      _____________________





                         GSBCA 16446-RELO





               In the Matter of  RICHARD J. MAILLET





     Richard J. Maillet, Singapore, Claimant.



     Vincent A. Cruz, Disbursing Officer, Navy Regional Contracting Center, Singapore,

appearing for Department of the Navy.



NEILL, Board Judge.



     Claimant in this case, Mr. Richard J. Maillet, is a civilian employee of the United

Sates Navy.  He asks that we review his agency's denial of reimbursement for the cost of air

transportation from Tampa, Florida, to his initial duty station in Singapore.  For the reason

stated below, we affirm the Navy's denial of Mr. Maillet's claim.  



                            Background



     In early 2004, Mr. Maillet was hired as a security specialist for the Navy.  Orders

issued on April 7, 2004, assigned him to the Navy Regional Contracting Center in

Singapore.  Mr. Maillet explains that, upon receiving his orders, he contacted his Human

Resources Office to determine whether he could personally arrange for airline transportation

to his new assignment.  He states that he was told that, if he did purchase tickets for himself

and his family in this fashion, his reimbursement would be limited to the amount the

Government would have paid if the arrangements had been made through a contract travel

office.  



     Mr. Maillet then proceeded to obtain tickets for himself, his wife, and his young

daughter.  He did this by using his own frequent flyer account with the air carrier.  He

subsequently sought reimbursement for the cost of the three tickets he had obtained.  The

request was denied on the ground that reimbursements are based on official receipts and

actual costs and not on the value of an item.  Since the receipts for Mr. Maillet's travel  list

the cost of each ticket at zero and show only a tax of $65, his agency states that it will

reimburse him only for the tax paid on the tickets.  



                            Discussion



     It is regrettable that claimant, as a new employee, was not given more complete

guidance on how to arrange for transportation to his new assignment.  With such guidance

he could have avoided the awkward position in which he now finds himself.  The rule,

however, is clear.  Employees, even new and inexperienced ones, who secure transportation

through the use of frequent flyer credits, coupons, or vouchers cannot be reimbursed for the

value of the transportation.



     The fundamental reason why reimbursement is not possible rests in the fact that, by

law, "only actual and necessary travel expenses may be allowed to an individual holding

employment or appointment under the United States."  5 U.S.C.   5706 (2000) (emphasis

added).  When transportation is secured with frequent flyer credits, coupons, or vouchers,

no direct expense is involved.  Admittedly, there is value involved, but the determination of

that value is itself a highly subjective process on which agreement is difficult if not

impossible.  



     The General Accounting Office (GAO), which previously ruled on travel claims such

as this, concluded several years ago that an employee could not be reimbursed the

constructive cost of a ticket in the absence of any legal obligation on the employee's part to

pay for the free ticket.  Martha C. Biernaski, 65 Comp. Gen. 171 (1985).   The GAO also

recognized that, although there was some admitted value in travel certificates, bonus

coupons, or similar instruments obtained through an employee's independent, personal

actions, nevertheless it simply was not in the Government's interest to become involved in

the use of such instruments.  Philip E. Trickett, B-224054 (Mar. 17, 1987). 



     In 1996, the Board assumed from GAO the responsibility for resolving claims of this

nature.  General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316,   202(o), 110 Stat.

3826, 3844 (1996), amending 31 U.S.C.   3702.  Given the lack of specific regulatory

authority to reimburse an employee for the value of a ticket obtained through the use of

frequent flyer miles, we subsequently concluded that GAO's analysis of this issue was sound. 

Consequently, we elected to follow the same rationale.  Roy W. Roth, GSBCA 14203-

TRAV (Feb. 27, 1998).  We have continued to do so in subsequent claims involving the

same issue.  E.g., Lawrence Baranski, GSBCA 15636-TRAV, 02-1 BCA   31,684;  Sabah

A. Issa, GSBCA 14140-TRAV, 98-1 BCA   29,678.  Nothing in the record of this case

suggests to us that we should not continue to follow this precedent.  Unfortunately, Mr.

Maillet cannot demonstrate that he incurred any actual expense other than the tax applied

to the three tickets in question.  In the absence of specific statutory or regulatory authority

permitting the agency to compensate him to some degree for the value of what was given

to obtain the tickets, the agency has acted properly in denying the claim.  We, therefore,

affirm the agency's determination.    



                                   ____________________________

                                   EDWIN B. NEILL

                                   Board Judge