Senior Airman Darrin L. Converse, USAF-Reimbursement of

B-270475 Jun 26, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights A member's entitlements under travel orders vest when the travel is performed and the travel orders may not be amended retroactively so as to increase or decrease entitlements under the orders except to correct an error that is clear on the face of the orders. The orders may not be retroactively amended to deprive him of reimbursement for the expense of meals on the basis that the directive not to use government mess was erroneous. Since the error was not clear on the face of the orders. DECISION This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement [1] which denied the claim of Senior Airman Darrin L. The orders stated that he was to be billetted on base and receive per diem at the on base rate. View Decision Matter of: Senior Airman Darrin L. Converse, USAF-Reimbursement of Travel Expenses File: B-270475 Date: June 26, 1996 A member's entitlements under travel orders vest when the travel is performed and the travel orders may not be amended retroactively so as to increase or decrease entitlements under the orders except to correct an error that is clear on the face of the orders. Therefore, where a member's orders provided for his billeting in government quarters at his temporary duty station but erroneously directed him not to use government mess, and he complied with the orders, the orders may not be retroactively amended to deprive him of reimbursement for the expense of meals on the basis that the directive not to use government mess was erroneous, since the error was not clear on the face of the orders. DECISION This is in response to an appeal of a Claims Group settlement [1] which denied the claim of Senior Airman Darrin L. Converse, USAF, for reimbursement of travel expenses he incurred while on temporary duty (TDY). For the reasons explained below, we reverse the Claims Group's settlement and allow the claim. Airman Converse received orders issued August 9, 1994, for travel from Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, to perform 90 days of TDY at Howard Air Force Base, Panama, beginning August 30, 1994. The orders stated that he was to be billetted on base and receive per diem at the on base rate, but they also stated that "Use of available Government mess will adversely affect the mission." Airman Converse questioned the latter statement of the orders at the finance office at his permanent duty station before departing on TDY, and he was assured that he was to procure his meals off base. The orders also provided that mission requirements precluded use of a government charge card for charges or automatic teller machine cash advances, but the orders authorized a travel advance. Prior to departure, Airman Converse was provided an advance of $2,150 to cover the first 45 days of TDY, which apparently was computed at 80 percent of the rate for a member billetted in government quarters and procuring meals off base in the area of his TDY. Airman Converse complied with his orders, and after the first 45 days sought a further advance from the finance office at Howard Air Force Base. Instead of providing the advance, the finance office personnel instructed Airman Converse to use his government charge card to cover his expenses for the remainder of the TDY, which he did. Upon completion of the TDY and return to his permanent duty station, Airman Converse filed his travel voucher and was initially advised by finance office personnel that he was due approximately $3,980. However, before payment was made to him, the Air Force organization that had issued his orders determined that the statement in the orders directing him to mess off base had been included erroneously, and amended orders were issued on December 5, 1994, to delete that provision. The effect of the amendment was to retroactively reduce his per diem entitlement from $5,247 to $1,980. Airman Converse claims reimbursement on the basis of the August 1994 orders as originally issued, arguing in effect that before he departed on TDY he was assured that the provision in question was correct, and he relied on the orders in good faith, incurring expenses for which he subsequently is being denied reimbursement. The Defense Finance and Accounting Center (DFAS) forwarded the claim to our Claims Group for settlement in view of the doubt as to the effect of the amendment to the orders.