GovernmentExecutive.com

An Air Force employee is not entitled to reimbursement for sending her children on an unaccompanied personal trip, the Board of Contract Appeals ruled.

Jacqueline Sablan, a personnel specialist at Andersen Air Force base in Guam, was hired to work there from May 1999 to May 2000. She extended her stay at the base for two additional years because she wanted to stay in Guam.

Sablan was eligible to take a renewal agreement travel (RAT) trip within a 90-day period starting on May 27, 2000. A RAT trip is a personal trip between work assignments.

But in February 2000, she became one of two personnel specialists in charge of running a reduction in force operation. In March 2000, Sablan's fellow personnel specialist left, and her boss told her that she would not be allowed to take any leave during the reduction in force because of her responsibilities.

She said she discussed with her boss the option of taking a trip in June, but her boss did not give her an official go-ahead. In March, Sablan went ahead and booked plane tickets for her children to travel from Guam to Bremerton, Wash., in June, leaving open the option that she could join them there later.

Sablan was unable to join her children, or take any RAT trip within the allowable 90-day period, because she had too much work left to complete on the reduction in force. The Air Force initially reimbursed her for the $3512.32 cost of her children's tickets, but in August 2002, determined that under a provision in the Joint Travel Regulations she was not eligible for reimbursement because she did not accompany her children.

The Board of Contract Appeals upheld the Air Force's decision, ruling that the Joint Travel Regulations statute only requires agencies to reimburse employees' dependents for travel after a tour of duty if the employee was also on the same trip. The employee and his or her dependants do not have to travel on the same flight, but they both need to go on the trip.

Jacqueline G. Sablan v. Air Force, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (15961-TRAV), April 15, 2003

Protecting Protectors

House lawmakers passed legislation in early April that includes key protections for Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission whistleblowers, according to two government watchdog groups.

The House version of the 2003 Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6), would give Energy and NRC whistleblowers the right to a district court jury trial if an administrative law judge at the Labor Department does not hear their complaint and issue a ruling within 180 days.

Under the bill, the Energy Department would not be responsible for reimbursing contractors accused of retaliating against whistleblowers for legal fees. The practice of reimbursing contractors discourages settlements in whistleblower cases, according to Tom Carpenter, the head of a nuclear safety program at the Government Accountability Project (GAP), a good-government group.

In a joint statement, GAP and the Project on Government Oversight, another watchdog group, praised the House legislation as an "important first step in providing federal employees involved in homeland security real help if they raise the alarm against security threats or waste, fraud and abuse of power, or when they disclose health, safety or environmental violations."

The bill passed the House on April 11 and is now being considered by the Senate.