|
|
August 22, 2008
CBCA
1106-RELO
In
the Matter of JAMES M. CUNNINGHAM
James
M. Cunningham, Mumbai, India, Claimant.
Nancy
J. Kripner, Office of Foreign Service Human Resources, United States and
Foreign Commercial Service, International Trade Administration, Washington, DC,
appearing for Department of Commerce.
SHERIDAN, Board Judge.
Claimant,
James M. Cunningham, is a foreign commercial service officer with the United
States and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS), International Trade
Administration, Department of Commerce.
Mr. Cunningham seeks review of the agency=s
decision denying reimbursement of $3826 he paid to change an airline ticket in
conjunction with his transfer of official duty (TDY) station and $1265 he
allegedly incurred in lodging costs while on temporary duty prior to his move
to the new station. We affirm the agency=s decision and deny claimant=s request for reimbursement.
Background
US&FCS
issued orders for Mr. Cunningham to make a permanent change of station from Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, to Mumbai, India, in 2005.
The orders provided that while en route between stations, Mr. Cunningham
would perform forty-seven days of TDY, from July 4 through August 20, 2005, in
Washington, D.C., for training and consultations. He would then take annual leave before
reporting to Mumbai. The orders provided
that while in Washington, claimant would be reimbursed for his lodging costs up
to a maximum of $153 per day during his first thirty days and $76.50 per day
during subsequent days of TDY.
While
on TDY in Washington, Mr. Cunningham stayed at an apartment complex, where his
rent was $118.40 per day from July 4 through August 2, and $117.40 per day thereafter.
US&FCS reimbursed claimant at the maximum authorized rates -- $153
per day for each of the thirty days from July 4 through August 2 and $76.50 per
day for each of the seventeen days from August 3 through August 20.
On
August 10, Mr. Cunningham requested the agency to authorize business class
travel from Washington to Mumbai because of his medical condition. The agency asked him to provide supporting
documentation regarding the condition and resultant need for business class
seating. On September 7, claimant finally
submitted documentation which the agency reasonably considered sufficient to
support his request. He made a business
class reservation for an United Airlines (United) flight leaving that evening
from Dulles International Airport (Dulles), near Washington, and connecting
through Zurich to Mumbai on a Swiss International Air Lines (Swissair) flight
for a fare of approximately $3600.
With
Mr. Cunningham=s departure imminent, the agency travel specialist who
was assisting with travel arrangements asked the Scheduled Airline Ticket
Office (SATO) whether it could issue electronic tickets so claimant could avoid
a trip to Commerce Department headquarters in downtown Washington to pick up
paper tickets. SATO informed her that
the only itinerary that was available with electronic ticketing was a United
itinerary that added a connection in Frankfurt, Germany, between Zurich and
Mumbai. At the request of the agency
travel specialist, SATO changed the reservation to the United itinerary that
included the connection in Frankfurt.
The fare for the revised ticket was $3694.30.
When
Mr. Cunningham arrived at the airport to begin his journey, he learned about
the additional Frankfurt stopover. He
was displeased because the new routing would cause him to arrive approximately
three hours later in Mumbai, where he would miss his planned ground
transportation. Claimant did not contact
his agency for assistance in resolving the problem. Instead, claimant spoke to a SATO agent who
explained the change in ticketing.
Finding the Frankfurt stopover unacceptable to him, claimant pressed the
SATO agent to change the ticket back to the Dulles/Zurich/Mumbai
itinerary. The SATO agent informed
claimant he could not do that because it would involve electronic ticketing
which was not available for the Zurich/Mumbai part of the itinerary. At Mr. Cunningham=s insistence, the SATO agent reinstated the Swissair
Zurich/Mumbai reservation.
Mr.
Cunningham then flew from Dulles to Zurich using the United tickets with the
Dulles/Zurich/Frankfurt/Mumbai itinerary.
When in Zurich, he went to purchase the ticket for the direct Swissair
Zurich/Mumbai flight. There he found out
that Athe cost of the second leg of the journey alone would
be far more than originally quoted . . . [but] at that stage I had no
alternative but to purchase the ticket.@ The direct Swissair flight was scheduled to
leave at 10:00 a.m. on September 8. The
United flight, with the stopover in Frankfurt, was scheduled to depart Zurich
one hour later, at 11:02 a.m. Claimant
decided to purchase the direct Swissair Zurich/Mumbai ticket, and placed the
additional $3826 charge on his credit card.
Claimant then abandoned the ticketed United
Dulles/Zurich/Frankfurt/Mumbai itinerary mid-trip and flew directly from Zurich
to Mumbai on the Swissair flight.
The
agency sought, but the airline would not provide, a refund for the unused
portion of the United Dulles/Zurich/Frankfurt/Mumbai ticket. On November 2, 2005, the National Business
Center (NBC), Department of the Interior, denied Mr. Cunningham=s reimbursement for the $3826 Swissair Zurich/Mumbai
ticket he purchased with his credit card.[1] NBC explained: AThe
ticket you purchased, for direct travel from Zurich to Mumbai, is only
reimbursable up to the amount refunded the government for the unused ticket.@ As a refund
for the unused ticket was not able to be recovered, no payment of the ticket
claimant purchased on his own credit card was reimbursed to him.
Regarding
his per diem, Mr. Cunningham was reimbursed at the authorized daily rates. For the first thirty days, from July 4
through August 2, 2005, he received $153 per day for lodging. Thereafter, the rate dropped to $76.50 per
day, and claimant was reimbursed from August 3 through 20, 2005, at that
rate. NBC applied the reduced rates in
processing claimant=s voucher.
Discussion
As
a foreign commercial service officer, claimant=s travel
is governed by the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). The FAM provides that:
In
accordance with the provisions of law and these regulations, Foreign Service
employees and the members of their families are entitled only to actual and
necessary expenses incurred in the performance of official travel. Travelers are expected to make a
conscientious effort to minimize costs of official travel and to assume costs
of a personal nature and any additional expenses incurred for personal
convenience.
14
FAM 513.
AEmployees
are expected to use good judgment in the costs they incur for all official
transportation expenses as if they were personally liable for payments.@ 14 FAM
515(a). Travelers are also responsible
for Aany charges incurred through failure to comply with
the governing regulations, regardless of who may have assisted the traveler in
making travel arrangements.@ 14 FAM
515(c)(2).
With
regard to the additional charge for the Swissair Zurich/Mumbai ticket, claimant
argues that, because US&FCS delayed in responding to his request for
business class travel, neglected to inform him it cancelled and re-routed his
planned itinerary, and failed to cancel the portion of the United tickets he
did not use, the agency should be held responsible for the $3826 charge. We disagree.
Based
on the record, we believe that claimant=s own
questionable and tardy presentation in
support of his asserted medical need for business class seating was the cause
of the delay in issuance of his original tickets. Once the agency had such documentation, it
acted promptly to approve claimant=s
request and to secure for him tickets which he could obtain within the short
time available before departure and without driving into downtown
Washington. What caused the additional
costs are claimant=s failure to contact the agency when he discovered the
change in the tickets, his demand that the previously cancelled reservation be
reinstated, and, ultimately, his imprudent purchase of the reinstated Swissair
ticket mid-way through the trip.
AIt is a
fundamental, overarching principle that a federal civilian employee traveling
on official business >must exercise the same care in incurring expenses that
a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal business.=@ Jack L.
Hovick, CBCA 655‑TRAV, 07‑2 BCA &
33,616 (quoting 41 CFR 301‑2.3 (2006)); see also Radhika Patole,
CBCA 770‑TRAV, 07‑2 BCA &
33,648. Claimant violated this rule when
he elected to spend an additional $3826 to avoid the stopover in
Frankfurt. For us to find that using the
second ticket was a prudent expense, a claimant must demonstrate that using the
second ticket resulted in some economic or logistical benefit to the
agency. See, e.g., Peter C.
Thurman, GSBCA 15562‑TRAV, 01‑2 BCA & 31,516.
Claimant=s assertion that he would have missed a ground
transportation connection in Mumbai does not justify his lack of prudence. Further, claimant has not demonstrated an
economic or logistical benefit to the agency or that there was some mission‑related
requirement that justified the additional expense. Given the circumstances presented here,
claimant=s desire to avoid the stopover in Frankfurt, and
changed ground transportation plans, is clearly insufficient
justification. The unauthorized
additional expense of $3826 for the Swissair Zurich/Mumbai ticket is claimant=s own responsibility.
Regarding
the $1265 claimant avers he should be compensated for additional lodging
expenses, claimant has not provided any statutory or regulatory authority, or
compelling argument, for increased rates or additional expenses. He has received all the lodging compensation
he was authorized. We deny his claim for
payment of an additional $1265 for lodging.
Decision
The
agency determination is affirmed and the claim denied.
_____________________________
PATRICIA J.
SHERIDAN
Board Judge
CBCA
23024-RELO Cunningham Decision.wpd