March 20, 2007
                                
                                
                         CBCA 489-TRAV
                                
                                
               In the Matter of JULIE H. HERLING
                                
                                
     Julie H. Herling, Silverdale, WA, Claimant.

     A. T. Tangonan, Deputy Disbursing Officer, Personnel Support Activity Detachment,
Department of the Navy, Bremerton, WA, appearing for Department of the Navy.
                                
KULLBERG, Board Judge.

     Claimant, a civilian employee of the Department of the Navy (Navy), has requested
review of the denial of full reimbursement for the airfare to her temporary duty (TDY)
assignment in Washington, D.C.  

     This case was docketed previously at the General Services Administration Board of
Contract Appeals (GSBCA) as GSBCA 16967-TRAV.  On January 6, 2007, in accordance
with section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L.
No. 109-163, 119 Stat. 3391, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) was
established, and this case was then docketed by the CBCA as CBCA 489-TRAV.  The
holdings of the GSBCA and other predecessor boards of contract appeals are binding on this
Board.  Business Management Research Associates, Inc. v. General Services Administration,
CBCA 464 (Jan. 18, 2007).

     Claimant contends that due to an administrative error, the airline ticket for her TDY
was not purchased through SATO, the travel management system (TMS) contractor for the
Navy, but, instead, it was purchased elsewhere at a cost of $648.40.  Her airfare could have
been obtained through SATO at a lesser government rate of $498.40, but she was unable to
exchange her ticket through SATO for one at the government rate because her ticket was not
refundable or transferable.  Subsequently, she was denied reimbursement for the full amount
of her airfare, which had been charged to her credit card.  Instead, she was reimbursed for
only the government rate of $498.40.

     The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which are applicable to claimant, limit the
reimbursement for her airfare to the government rate that would have been charged if she had
obtained her ticket through the Navy's TMS, the contractor for which was SATO.  JTR
C2203-D.1.  Claimant is also subject to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and the FTR
would have required an approved exception to using SATO in order for her to be fully
reimbursed.  41 CFR 301-50.5 (2005) (FTR 301-50.5).  An exception to arranging travel
through an agency's TMS requires a finding that doing so would unreasonably burden the
agency's mission, compromise a national security interest, or endanger the traveler's life. 
FTR 301-50.4.  The Navy did not find that any of those exceptions applied to claimant, but
rather, it determined that claimant did not meet the criteria of "mission critical" for full
reimbursement.  Claimant, therefore, was properly reimbursed for the cost of her airfare up
to the amount of the government rate, and she must personally bear any extra cost incurred. 
See Anna Maria Abrigo, GSBCA 15675-TRAV, 02-2 BCA  31,921.

     Claimant has alleged that her airline ticket was purchased as the result of an
administrative error made by an agency official's secretary.  After receipt of the agency's
submission, claimant advised that she did not intend to file a response, so she has never
provided any further explanation or evidence to support her allegation.  In any case, even if
claimant's ticket were purchased in error as alleged, this Board cannot direct payment of
public funds for travel expenses incurred by mistake where reimbursement of such expenses
is not allowed under statute or regulation.  See Thomas Gozzo, GSBCA 14168-TRAV, 97-2
BCA  29,290.


                                   ______________________
                                   H. CHUCK KULLBERG
                                   Board Judge