Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 March 27, 2000 GSBCA 15242-TRAV In the Matter of LEMUEL E. MAULDIN, III Lemuel E. Mauldin, III, Moffett Field, CA, Claimant. Stephen J. Varholy, Director, Financial Management Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Lemuel E. Mauldin, III, is an employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He has requested review of his agency's determination not to reimburse him for certain funds, as described below. As discussed below, claimant is entitled to reimbursed the additional $90 that he seeks. Factual Background Claimant was on official travel to the Ukraine and Russia in December 1997. Claimant states that his agency gave him a travel advance of $3140, which was electronically deposited into his credit union checking account. He withdrew approximately $2000 of this travel advance in United States currency to take with him on his travel. He converted $440 into Ukranian currency. He anticipated using approximately $90 worth of the Ukranian currency to pay a charge for excess baggage when he departed. He knew from prior experience that he must pay for excess baggage with local currency, as credit cards would not be accepted. Upon departure, he was not charged for excess baggage, and therefore did not have to spend the Ukranian currency. Once he checked his baggage, no Ukranian banks or other means of conversion were available to claimant. He carried the currency to his next destination, Russia, where he made several attempts to convert the currency, but he was not successful. Upon arrival in the United States, he made two attempts to convert the currency in JFK Airport in New York, and again was not successful. Finally, when he arrived home, he made an attempt to convert the currency at a local branch of NationsBank, but the bank declined to convert the currency. When claimant submitted his travel voucher, he still had possession of the Ukrainian currency. He submitted the currency with his travel voucher, noting on the voucher that the currency was attached and requesting reimbursement in the amount of $90. The travel office disallowed the claim as an "exchange loss." After that, the record of this case indicates that the travel official who originally received the Ukranian currency with the travel voucher recalls that the currency was returned to claimant after reimbursement in United States currency was denied. Claimant denies that the Ukranian currency was ever returned to him and asserts that the travel office lost it. Claimant then requested an adjudication from the agency, which denied reimbursement on two grounds - 1) that reimbursement was properly disallowed as an "exchange loss" and 2) claimant failed to safeguard his travel advance. Claimant has requested this Board to review the agency's denial of his claim for reimbursement of $90. Discussion The agency's first ground for denying reimbursement is that claimant suffered an "exchange loss." The agency states: An exchange loss, as traditionally defined by decisions of the Comptroller General, is usually the loss an employee sustains in converting foreign currency into U.S. Dollars by reason of a variation in the basic value of the dollar during the time the employee held the currency. . . . These decisions address situations where employees suffer a loss due to a devaluation of either local currency or the U.S. dollar. They do not address situations where as in the instant case, employees are left holding unconverted foreign currency which was obtained with a travel advance. Nonetheless, their reasoning is clear, the risk of incurring an exchange loss lies with the employee since the Government cannot be held accountable for fluctuations of the value of the dollar or currency value. Likewise, the Government cannot be held accountable for an employee's inability to reconvert foreign currency to U.S. dollars. The risk lies with the traveler. The agency s reasoning is incorrect. This is not an example of an exchange loss. The employee is not seeking to recover the variation in value due to fluctuation in currency rates. He is merely requesting reimbursement of the value of the foreign currency, which he returned to his travel office, in United States currency. There is no support for the agency s conclusion that the employee must be held accountable for an inability to reconvert foreign currency to United States currency. Claimant states that having made many attempts to convert the foreign currency to United States currency in the Ukraine, Russia, and the United States, he attached the currency to his travel voucher, noting on the voucher that it was attached, and requested reimbursement in equivalent United States currency. While the travel official to whom he gave the voucher and the currency now states that she recalls returning the foreign currency to claimant, claimant denies that he ever received the currency and instead asserts that the travel office lost the currency. He states, "Surely you do not think that I would go to this great length to steal $90 from the Federal Government." The Board accepts claimant's statement that he did not receive back the foreign currency from the travel official. Apparently, the foreign currency was lost when it was within the custody and control of the Government. The agency s attempt to place the burden of loss on claimant fails. In fact, the authority which the agency cites to support its denial of reimbursement actually supports claimant's position. In Allen Lupfer and Edwin Ulrich, B-200404 (Feb. 12, 1981), two employees who had unused travel advances placed them in a Government safe. The safe was opened by another employee who knew the combination and the funds were stolen. The Comptroller General held that while travel advances are in the nature of personal loans for which the traveler remains accountable, once the employee relinquishes dominion and control of those funds to the Government, those funds again become public funds. Accordingly, any loss thereafter is borne by the Government. In this instance, claimant relinquished dominion and control over the currency when he attached it to his travel voucher and gave it to the travel official. While the travel official recalls that the foreign currency was returned to claimant, we believe claimant's assertions that the currency was not returned to him. Accordingly, any loss sustained is the responsibility of the Government. In summary, the Government's initial reason for refusing claimant reimbursement, i.e., that the foreign currency represents an exchange loss, is erroneous. The currency was within the dominion and control of the Government when it was lost. Accordingly, the Government bears the responsibility of the loss of the currency. Claimant s claim is for a correction in the calculation of the balance due, after taking into account his return of foreign currency which represented $90 of his travel advance. The Government travel office calculated his total actual claim - per diem, airfare, phone calls, taxi, parking, and commission[foot #] 1- which equaled $5,992.46. This calculation was correct. However, the travel office erred when it credited to claimant the entire travel advance of $3140. When claimant returned the foreign currency to the travel office, the value of that currency should no longer have been included in claimant s travel advance, as the currency became public funds when it was surrendered into the Government s dominion and control. Allen Lupfer and Edwin Ulrich. For purposes of calculating claimant s reimbursement, claimant s travel advance should have then been reduced by the value of the foreign currency - $90. Accordingly, claimant should have been credited with a travel advance of $3050, which would have caused him to receive reimbursement of an additional $90. The proper calculation is shown below Total Claim $5,992.46 Applied Travel Advance 3,050.00 Amount due Claimant $2,942.46 Amount Actually Reimbursed 2,852.46 Additional amount due $ 90.00 Decision The claimant is entitled to reimbursement of $90. _____________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The record is not clear as to what was deemed commission.