Claim for Actual Subsistence Expense

A Federal employee, while performing temporary duty out of town, stayed with friends; therefore, he incurred no lodging expenses. The agency disallowed a portion of his travel voucher claim based upon its subsistence allowance policy contained in a memorandum to all employees. The memorandum stated that employees on temporary duty assignment who do not incur lodging costs generated by a hotel, motel, or the like, will not be reimbursed for more than 46 percent of the total subsistence allowance. The employee contested the disallowance of the amounts claimed arguing that "actual expenses" means just that and, as long as the amount is below the maximum rate, it should be allowed. The employee was not correct in his belief that an employee is entitled to be reimbursed for meals up to the maximum rate. GAO has always held that employees are entitled to be reimbursed only for reasonable expenses for meals, since travelers are required to act prudently in incurring expenses while on official business. The employing agency is responsible in the first instance for determining what constitutes reasonable expenses for meals in each case and, where it has exercised that responsibility, GAO will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency unless the agency's determination is clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Furthermore, GAO determined that it was not unreasonable to establish guidelines alerting employees to the fact that the maximum amount considered reasonable for meals and miscellaneous expenses is 46 percent of the statutory maximum. However, such a guideline may not operate as an absolute bar to payment of additional amounts when the additional amount can be justified as reasonable due to unusual circumstances. Accordingly, absent further justification for the additional amounts, the agency's denial of the employee's claim for additional amounts spent for meals was sustained.