GovernmentExecutive.com

Jonathan Kaplan was an employee of the Federal Railroad Administration in December 2001 when he flew to St. Louis on agency business.

Kaplan, who lived in Darnestown, Md., decided to drive his own car to Baltimore-Washington International Airport, but it broke down at the airport garage. When Kaplan returned from St. Louis, he had his car towed to a service station near his home and had the tow truck take him home.

Kaplan didn't ask the agency to pay for the towing costs, but he did request reimbursement for $34.50 in roundtrip mileage costs between Darnestown and Baltimore. The agency gave him only half of that amount because, officials said, he didn't drive the car home.

Kaplan disputed that decision, arguing that the per-mile allowance rate established under the Federal Travel Regulation is not based on actual use, but rather is based on estimates of both operational and incidental costs. According to Kaplan, though his car was towed, it was still subject to wear and tear, and he was entitled to the full mileage reimbursement.

The railroad administration stood by its original decision.

But the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals agreed with Kaplan. According to the board, federal employees are entitled to be reimbursed for using their own cars to travel to and from an airport or train station, and if they are forced to use some other form of transportation, they are still entitled to the reimbursement benefit.

"Mr. Kaplan is not seeking here to be paid the total cost of towing his vehicle or even the constructive cost of returning home from the airport in a taxi," the board said in its ruling. "Rather, in view of his earlier decision to go to and from the airport in his car, he is accepting as the reimbursement cap for his actual costs of returning from the airport the reimbursement he would otherwise have received had he been able to use his car for the return trip, an amount which is considerably less than the constructive cost of a taxi fare and tip."

Kaplan received the full $34.50.

In the Matter of Jonathan Kaplan, Board of Contract Appeals, General Services Administration, (15854-TRAV), October 9, 2002

Repeat Offender

When William Bartram Jr. was fired from his job as a rural mail carrier in Guthrie, Okla., he appealed to a Postal Service administrative judge.

The misconduct that Bartram was fired for began in 2000. On July 26, the Postal Service gave him a warning for failing to follow instructions and for mishandling the mail. Then on Aug. 28, the agency suspended him for 14 days for similar behavior. After a third such incident, Bartram was removed.

The administrative judge Bartram appealed to ordered that he be reinstated and suspended for 30 days. The judge held the Postal Service should have ignored Bartram's first warning in its deliberations after the third incident, because it was the subject of a pending grievance. The judge also found that Bartram, a 19-year veteran of the Postal Service, had potential for rehabilitation.

Both Bartram and the Postal Service appealed this ruling to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The board denied Bartram's appeal of the 30-day suspension, finding no evidence of age discrimination, which he had claimed. It accepted the agency's petition, but opted to suspend Bartram for 45 days instead of firing him.

MSPB found the judge was wrong to ignore part of Bartram's disciplinary history, regardless of whether it was subject of a grievance. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Postal Service v. Gregory, the board held that an agency can consider prior discipline that is subject to an ongoing grievance when meting out punishment.

In light of Bartram's repeated offenses, MSPB found a 45-day suspension to be a more just penalty. But it ordered the Postal Service to reinstate him and pay him back pay and benefits for time missed.

William Bartram Jr. v. United States Postal Service, Merit Systems Protection Board (Doc. # DA-0752-01-0115-I-1)