Gerald A. Cavis; Jack L. Johnson, Jr.; Stephen P.

B-259602 Nov 27, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The Claims Group's settlement is reversed. The use of so-called composite receipts that purport to include all incidental lodging expenses on one receipt is contrary to the Federal Travel Regulation requirement to itemize all expenses and to provide receipts for all lodging expenses. An agency may gather its own data to determine the reasonableness of any expenses that are not properly substantiated. Waiver is denied in all four cases. Which were paid. FMD employees questioned the FSD supervisors and learned that these supervisors were not aware of the requirement to reduce the maximum reimbursement rate for long-term assignments and consequently had not informed the employees attending the DODPI about the requirement. View Decision Matter of: Gerald A. Cavis; Jack L. Johnson, Jr.; Stephen P. Monteiro; and James P. McGettigan File: B-259602 Date: November 27, 1995 An agency has appealed to the Comptroller General a settlement issued by the Claims Group granting waiver to four employees for debts incurred incident to long-term training assignments. The Claims Group granted waiver based on their determination that the employees had relied on erroneous travel orders. On appeal, however, the agency has presented additional information showing that the debts arose from excessive spending by the employees, and not in reliance on erroneous orders. Accordingly, the Claims Group's settlement is reversed. Four employees assigned to long-term training assignments rented apartments on a monthly basis. Each of them submitted "composite receipts" for lodging that included rent and a number of incidental lodging expenses. They did not itemize each expense or provide receipts. The use of so-called composite receipts that purport to include all incidental lodging expenses on one receipt is contrary to the Federal Travel Regulation requirement to itemize all expenses and to provide receipts for all lodging expenses. An agency may gather its own data to determine the reasonableness of any expenses that are not properly substantiated. DECISION The United States Secret Service appeals Claims Group settlement, Z-2925858 et al., April 13, 1994, granting waiver to four employees for debts incurred incident to long-term training assignments performed by the employees. We reverse. Waiver is denied in all four cases. BACKGROUND The agency authorized the following employees to attend training at the Department of Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) in Anniston, Alabama, during the following periods: Employee Period Gerald A. Cavis May 11 - August 12, 1988 Jack L. Johnson, Jr. May 11 - August 19, 1986 Stephen P. Monteiro May 11 - August 19, 1986 James P. McGettigan January 5 - April 16, 1986 The agency has a written directive limiting the reimbursement for training that exceeds 30 days to 55 percent of the applicable maximum per diem rate. [1] Higher rates may be approved in advance by the Office of Training. However, in these cases, officials in the Forensic Services Division (FSD), in whose division the employees worked, issued each of the employees travel orders authorizing 100 percent of the applicable maximum per diem rate. Subsequently, each of the employees submitted vouchers claiming the full 100 percent rate, which were paid. The Financial Management Division (FMD) discovered the error in 1991, when a similarly situated employee whose travel order contained the correct 55 percent limitation questioned why other employees had not had the reduced rate applied to their travel. FMD employees questioned the FSD supervisors and learned that these supervisors were not aware of the requirement to reduce the maximum reimbursement rate for long-term assignments and consequently had not informed the employees attending the DODPI about the requirement. The FSD supervisors asserted that the 55 percent limitation was insufficient and provided the FMD with costs FSD supervisors had determined to be reasonable. Based on this information, the FMD concluded that the reimbursement rate should be 80 percent of the applicable maximum per diem rate. Subsequently, the FMD began to review the vouchers of other Secret Service agents who had attended the DODPI training and discovered that all of the vouchers they reviewed had been paid at the 100 percent rate. In the course of this investigation, the FMD noticed that the vouchers of some employees included lodging expenses substantially higher than the cost estimates used in FMD's analysis. At this point, the agency's Office of Inspection (OI) joined the investigation. This office discovered that the four individuals in this case had submitted receipts for lodging that were significantly higher than their rental payments.