Donna K. Buford

B-260999 Oct 17, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights The employee's transportation expenses incurred by commuting from the suburb to the temporary duty station may be set off against the $200 advance in an amount not to exceed the expenses to which the employee would have been entitled had she obtained lodging in the high cost area. DECISION This advance decision is made at the request of Ms. Her transportation expenses incurred by commuting from the suburb to the temporary duty station may be set off against the $200 advance in an amount not to exceed the expenses to which the employee would have been entitled had she obtained lodging in the high cost area. The employee's travel order states that she was authorized actual expenses at the rate of $50 per day and was authorized the use of taxicabs when necessary. View Decision Matter of: Donna K. Buford File: B-260999 Date: October 17, 1996 The employee's reclaim voucher for three nights' noncommercial lodging with a friend may not be set off against the $200 advance owed by the employee to the agency because the employee has not submitted documents showing the additional expenses incurred by her hostess. The employee's transportation expenses incurred by commuting from the suburb to the temporary duty station may be set off against the $200 advance in an amount not to exceed the expenses to which the employee would have been entitled had she obtained lodging in the high cost area. DECISION This advance decision is made at the request of Ms. Willie M. King, an authorized certifying officer, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to determine whether she may allow for setoff certain reclaim vouchers submitted by an employee in defense of the agency's efforts to collect the balance due of a $200 travel advance. For the reasons stated below, the employee's reclaim voucher for three nights' noncommercial lodging may not be set off against the advance, but her transportation expenses incurred by commuting from the suburb to the temporary duty station may be set off against the $200 advance in an amount not to exceed the expenses to which the employee would have been entitled had she obtained lodging in the high cost area. BACKGROUND From May 12 through May 15, 1980, the employee, Donna K. Buford, traveled on temporary duty from Atlanta, Georgia, to Washington, D.C., on official business. The employee's travel order states that she was authorized actual expenses at the rate of $50 per day and was authorized the use of taxicabs when necessary. While on temporary duty in Washington, D.C., the employee stayed with a friend in a private home in Columbia, Maryland, for three nights and commuted to work by train. She paid $90 to her host for three nights' accommodations and $14.90 for train transportation to commute to work from Columbia, Maryland, to Washington, D.C. The employee indicated that her stay in this home was a personal accommodation rather than a business arrangement and that the owner of the home did not rent out the room as a general practice. According to the employee, $90 paid to the owner represented $30 per night and this amount was based on the fact that the owner incurred additional expenses as a result of the employee's stay, such as the owner's time and expense in laundering of linens and towels, increased use in utilities, the cost of driving the employee by privately owned vehicle from the private home to the train station, etc. The employee, however, submitted no documentation for any of these additional expenses with either her original travel voucher or with her subsequent reclaim voucher. The agency denied the $90 for lodging on the basis that the employee's per diem was limited to 40 percent of the locality rate when an employee obtained noncommercial lodging. The agency denied the $14.90 for train fare on the basis that such reimbursement was limited to the constructive cost of what it would have cost to commute from lodging in Washington, D.C., the temporary duty station, to the actual place of business. In February 1995, the employee submitted reclaim vouchers for $90 and $14.90, respectively. The Director, Financial Management Division, requested an advance decision from our office to determine whether the reclaim vouchers in the amount of $104.90 could be set off against the $200 advance owed by the employee to the agency. ANALYSIS Ms. Buford's claim accrued in May 1980 at the time of travel. By statute, claims which are not received within 6 years after the date they first accrue, are barred. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3702(b)(1). However, under the doctrine of recoupment, the employee is not required to assert a claim against the United States in order to eliminate or reduce an indebtedness for an advance of funds under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5705.