Gail Braten

B-262009 Dec 05, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights An employee assigned to a temporary duty assignment originally was not authorized to rent a car and relied on public transportation to commute to and from work and for personal travel. The claim is payable. Travel orders may not be amended retroactively to deny reimbursement unless the orders are clearly erroneous. The orders here were not clearly erroneous since an agency regulation permits employees for whom a rental car has been authorized to use the vehicle to travel to places "for the sustenance. Are payable. The answer is yes. Braten and her spouse are employees stationed in the agency's Anchorage. "Personal preference or minor inconvenience will not be the basis for authorizing or approving the use of a special conveyance instead of a cheaper mode of transportation.". View Decision Matter of: Gail Braten File: B-262009 Date: December 5, 1995 An employee assigned to a temporary duty assignment originally was not authorized to rent a car and relied on public transportation to commute to and from work and for personal travel. In the third month of her detail, she requested the use of a rental car, because her spouse and children needed transportation for doctor's appointments and for grocery shopping. The agency amended her travel orders accordingly. The employee continued to use public transportation to commute to and from work and used the rental vehicle for the reasons stated. Although the district finance officer at the employee's permanent duty station denied her claim for the rental car, the claim is payable. Travel orders may not be amended retroactively to deny reimbursement unless the orders are clearly erroneous. The orders here were not clearly erroneous since an agency regulation permits employees for whom a rental car has been authorized to use the vehicle to travel to places "for the sustenance, comfort, or health of the employee . . . ." Joint Travel Regulation Vol. II, para. C2102(F). DECISION The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers asks whether Ms. Gail Braten's claims for a rental car and garage and parking fees, which she incurred while on a temporary duty assignment, are payable. The answer is yes. BACKGROUND Both Ms. Braten and her spouse are employees stationed in the agency's Anchorage, Alaska office. The agency selected both of them to participate in Executive Development assignments, which required about 6 months of temporary duty assignments at its Washington, D.C. headquarters building from November 1993 until April 30, 1994. Accordingly, the agency issued each of them separate travel orders. Ms. Braten and her spouse obtained lodgings on a monthly rental basis, and each of the them claimed half the rent on their individual vouchers. The couple took their children, then ages 1 and 3, with them to Washington. The original travel orders for Ms. Braten and her spouse did not authorize the use of a rental car. The couple used the subway to commute to and from their temporary lodgings and the agency's headquarters. Early in 1994, Ms. Braten's spouse and children needed transportation to doctor's appointments and, she states, using the subway and taxis to do so proved difficult because the harsh winter weather disrupted the public transportation. She also states that grocery shopping became very difficult because of the weather. Ms. Braten advised the agency's Chief of Travel and Transportation of her family's situation, who informed her that she could be authorized a rental car. Subsequently, Ms. Braten asked her supervisor to approve the use of a rental car. The supervisor supported the request and requested further approval from his supervisor, who also concurred in the request. Accordingly, the agency amended Ms. Braten's travel orders on February 17, 1994, to authorize the use of a rental car. Ms. Braten continued to use the subway to commute to and from work because of parking costs. She used the rental car primarily around the area of her lodgings. She continued to use the rental car until her assignment ended the following April. Subsequently, she claimed $1,860.92, for the cost of the rental car and $165.66, for parking expenses near her lodgings. The Alaska district finance and accounting officer who reviewed Ms. Braten's vouchers denied her claims based on an agency regulation that states, in part, "Personal preference or minor inconvenience will not be the basis for authorizing or approving the use of a special conveyance instead of a cheaper mode of transportation." Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) Vol. II, para. C2102(A).