GovernmentExecutive.com

The Army should reimburse a federal employee for the cost of the hotel room he rented the day before an overnight flight, the Board of Contract Appeals said.

As part of a 17-day trip for the Army, Raymond Blauvelt booked an overnight flight from Honolulu to Anchorage, Alaska. Blauvelt, who cannot sleep on airplanes, rented a hotel room in Honolulu for the day and evening at reduced rates, so that he could finish some work and sleep before leaving at 11:00 p.m. for Alaska.

When Blauvelt returned from his trip, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service refused to reimburse him for the hotel room, citing a section in the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR C1050-A) that says employees are not entitled to reimbursements for any expense that is not on the list of nonreimbursable expenses.

Blauvelt filed a complaint with the General Services Administration's Board of Contract Appeals. "It is certainly unreasonable to expect that I would be required, while on government business, to sleep on a couch in the middle of a hotel lobby," he said in a written statement.

In addition, Blauvelt took issue with the accounting service's decision to pay him the per diem rate for Anchorage on the day he took the overnight flight, even though he spent all but one hour of the day in Honolulu. The per diem rate to cover meals and other miscellaneous expenses is lower in Anchorage than in Honolulu.

On Feb. 6, the Board of Contract Appeals ruled that the accounting service should reimburse Blauvelt for his hotel expenses and pay him the per diem rate for Honolulu for the 23 hours he spent there before his overnight flight. The court said that his request to cover hotel expenses was reasonable since he needed to sleep to be able to do his work, and he was unable to sleep on the plane.

"Agencies should interpret federal travel regulations in a common-sense way, taking into consideration the normal, human needs of the employees whom those agencies direct to conduct the government's business away from permanent duty stations," the court ruled. "Among those needs is a requirement for sleep."

Also, because Blauvelt needed lodging in Honolulu for the day and spent most of his time there, the accounting office should pay him the per diem rate for that city, the court decided. In support of its decision, the board cited a section of the Joint Travel Regulation (C4553-D.2.b(1)) that says: "For each full calendar day an employee is in a travel status and lodging is required (whether en route or at the destination), the per diem allowance is the actual cost of lodging incurred by the traveler, up to the applicable maximum lodging rate."

Raymond X. Blauvelt v. Defense Department, GSA Board of Contract Appeals (16033-TRAV), Feb. 6, 2003

Alienation

A citizen of the Philippines is not entitled to civil service retirement benefits for 20 years of service in the U.S. Air Force, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last month.

Jose Carreon worked for the Air Force for most of an 11-year period between 1945 and 1956. For some of that time, the Air Force withheld retirement deductions from his salary. On Sept. 8, 1956, Carreon left the Air Force because of a reduction-in-force, and he received a refund for his retirement contributions up to that date.

The Air Force rehired Carreon 20 days later for an indefinite time period. He ended up working for the Air Force until 1976, when he retired because of a disability. Carreon tried to collect Civil Service Retirement System annuity benefits, but the Office of Personnel Management denied him the potential benefits accumulated over those 20 years, telling him he was not eligible under Title 5, Section 8333(b) of the United States Code.

Carreon appealed OPM's decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which supported OPM's position in an April 24, 2002 ruling. The board decided that as an "alien having an indefinite appointment whose duty station was in a foreign country," Carreon did not qualify for benefits in the Civil Service Retirement System between Sept. 28, 1956, and Jan. 19, 1976, according to Title 5, Section 831.201(b) of the Federal Code of Regulations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld MSPB's ruling. Carreon's "entire period of service between Sept. 28, 1956, and Jan. 19, 1976, was excluded from CSRS coverage under a law, rule or regulation," the Court of Appeals said. Specifically, Carreon was not eligible to receive the benefits for that time under Title 5, Section 8333(b) of the United States Code, as decided by OPM, the court said.

Jose Carreon v. Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (02-3263), Feb. 28, 2003

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.