B-244666, Feb 1, 1992

B-244666, Feb 1, 1992

DIGEST: When an employee who is performing temporary duty (TDY) at one training location is required to interrupt that duty for occasional overnight assignments at another TDY location, the employee on such occasions is entitled to the full per diem allowance at the second location and only the actual lodging expenses incurred at the initial location.

Nancy Farabee:

The issue here is the proper method of reimbursement for costs incurred by Ms. Nancy Farabee, an employee of the Bureau of Reclamation, because of her dual travel status. We agree with the method of reimbursement used by the agency, as discussed below. /1/

Ms. Farabee was assigned to temporary duty for 3 months of training away from her official duty station. Her authorized per diem rate at the training site was $53.90 a day. /2/ In addition, she was authorized a rate of $66 a day for overnight assignments away from her training site. When Ms. Farabee traveled away from her training site about once a week, she incurred dual lodging costs. When that occurred, the Bureau reimbursed her actual expenses for lodging at the training location and full per diem (lodging plus meals and incidental expenses) at the overnight temporary duty location.

The Bureau based its action on section 301-7.14(c)(1) of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) which states that, if temporary duty is interrupted for the benefit of the government and the employee is unable to obtain a refund of prepaid rent, expenses incurred for unused lodging may be reimbursed by actual subsistence costs. Ms. Farabee feels that section of the FTR does not apply to her situation. Ms. Farabee argues that her temporary duty was not interrupted, but that she was experiencing dual travel. She feels that she should be reimbursed for her lodging at the training location during dual travel in the same manner she would be reimbursed if dual travel had not occurred. Ms. Farabee states that because her actual subsistence costs are lower than the reduced per diem, the difference in costs causes her to lose approximately 36 percent of the reduced per diem amount per day.

We do not agree that the regulation used by the Bureau, FTR, 41 C.F.R. Sec. 301-7.14(c)(1) (1991), is inapplicable, since it specifically provides that when an employee's travel assignment is interrupted for official purposes, such as where the employee performs temporary duty at another location, the employee's actual lodging costs at the first location incurred during the interruption may be paid, provided the agency determines that the employee acted reasonably in incurring prepaid lodging expenses. See Milton J. Olsen, 60 Comp.Gen. 630 (1981). /3/ In addition, the employee is entitled to full per diem at the second location. 41 C.F.R. Sec. 301-7.14(c)(1)(ii)(D) (1991).

Accordingly, we conclude that the Bureau properly calculated the dual lodging costs involved in this case. Ms. Farabee's claim for additional reimbursement is, therefore, denied.

/1/ The request was submitted by Mr. Efraim Escalante, Chief, Accounting Operations Division, Bureau of Reclamation, United States Department of the Interior.

/2/ In accordance with 5 C.F.R. Sec. 410.603 (1991), Ms. Farabee's travel orders authorized per diem of 55 percent of the maximum rate payable for the locality of the extended training assignment. See also 41 C.F.R. Sec. 301-7.12(d)(2) (1991).

/3/ See Mark J. Worst, B-223026, Nov. 3, 1987; Ernest L. Hyman, B-206057, June 16, 1983; see also Paul G. Thibault, 69 Comp.Gen. 72 (1989). B-244666