June
6, 2008
CBCA
1003-RELO
In
the Matter of MARSHA K. HARRINGTON-EVANS
Marsha
K. Harrington-Evans, Mebane, NC, Claimant.
JoAnne
Rountree, Supervisor, Chief PCS Travel Accounting, Financial Services Center,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin, TX, appearing for Department of
Veterans Affairs.
POLLACK, Board Judge.
Ms.
Marsha K. Harrington-Evans, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), claims $1038.48 for transportation expenses associated with renting a
vehicle in conjunction with a relocation of duty station. Claimant made a permanent change of station
move with the VA from Denver, Colorado, to Durham, North Carolina. Claimant was authorized to ship her car to
the new duty station under the permanent change of station relocation, and she
did so. When she arrived at the new duty
station, she rented a vehicle for use until her car arrived.
The
relocation company which handled the relocation did not advise her that a
rental car was not an authorized expense.
As she explained, had she known that a rental car would not be an
authorized expense, she would have had her personal vehicle transported to Durham
prior to her arrival there. Based on her
statements, she arrived in Durham without a vehicle, on the assumption that she
could rent one and be reimbursed. The
claimant does not allege that she used the car for business purposes under
authorization from the Durham facility.
This
claim involves an interpretation of Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-6.18,
which provides:
May I be reimbursed
for local transportation expenses incurred while I am occupying temporary
quarters? Generally no; local
transportation expenses are not TQSE, and there is no authority to pay such
expense under TQSE. You may, however, be
reimbursed under Part 302-4 of this subtitle for necessary transportation
expenses if you perform local official business travel while you are occupying
temporary quarters.
41 CFR 302-6.18
(2007). The VA interprets the above to
provide that reimbursement for local transportation applies to local official
business travel and not to commuting to and from work. The VA states that if the vehicle was used
for official business and was approved for local transportation, the VA could
reimburse claimant under the local travel policy. [reimbursement could be appropriate for local
travel at a duty station, too - e.g., if the car was used to travel among
agency facilities on business.]
The
General Services Board of Contract Appeals, our predecessor in settling claims
by federal civilian employees for relocation expenses, dealt with the above
issue in a number of decisions. In Patrick
O. Walsh, GSBCA 16243-RELO, 04-1 BCA &
32,520 (2003), the board rejected a claim for eight days of rental, pointing
out that rental was not authorized under the FTR. The board clearly stated that the information
provided showed that the vehicle was not used or needed for official business,
but rather appeared to have been rented to meet local transportation needs. Citing several earlier rulings that denied
reimbursement for local transportation costs at a new duty station, the board
denied reimbursement. Id. at
160,867-68; see also Thomas
Slonaker, GSBCA 15425-RELO, 01-2 BCA &
31,447.
As
to the contention that the claimant was not advised by the relocation company
that she would not be reimbursed, that
too does not serve as a basis for reimbursement. First, the relocation company has no legal
duty to provide that information.
Moreover, even where an agency mistakenly advises an employee that the
employee can rent a car, our predecessor board held that the restriction as to
reimbursement would still apply. Daniel
M. Robers, GSBCA 15525-RELO, 01-2 BCA &
31,454.
