ML022560452
| ML022560452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry, Watts Bar, Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 09/06/2002 |
| From: | Euchner J NRC/OGC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Byrdsong A T | |
| References | |
| +adjud/rulemjr200506, 50-259-CIVP, 50-260-CIVP, 50-296-CIVP, 50-327-CIVP, 50-328-CIVP, 50-390-CIVP, ASLBP 01-791-01-CIVP, EA-99-234, RAS 4821 | |
| Download: ML022560452 (38) | |
Text
September 6, 2002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-390-CivP; 50-327-CivP TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
50-328-CivP; 50-259-CivP (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1
)
50-260-CivP; 50-296-CivP Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2
)
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,2 &3)
)
)
ASLBP No. 01-791-01-CivP
)
EA 99-234 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO COMPEL The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff hereby responds to theTennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) motion to compel the Staff to pay additional witness fees and costs to Wilson C. McArthur. The NRC Staff requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) deny TVA's motion to compel the Staff to pay additional costs to McArthur.
BACKGROUND On April 9, 2002, the NRC Staff mailed a subpoena to McArthur compelling his testimony in this matter beginning on May 2, 2002 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Staff scheduled McArthur's testimony on that date based on representations from TVA counsel Brent Marquand that McArthur and his wife would be driving from Provo, Utah to Florida for personal business and would be passing through the Chattanooga area in the beginning of May. As a result of this representation, the Staff did not arrange for air transportation for McArthur to Chattanooga.
Instead, the Staff planned to reimburse McArthur for his mileage pursuant to the subpoena.
McArthur and his wife did not drive to Chattanooga, but cashed in frequent flyer miles on United Airlines for a flight from Salt Lake City, Utah to Atlanta, Georgia. McArthur then traveled by rental car from Atlanta to Chattanooga prior to the scheduled start of his testimony. After the completion of his testimony, McArthur traveled on personal business, returning to Salt Lake City on May 11, 2002. Upon his return to Utah, McArthur mailed his travel information, including his ticket receipt from United Airlines, his hotel receipt, and his rental car receipt to Marquand for reimbursement. Marquand then forwarded this information to Staff counsel for reimbursement of McArthur pursuant to the subpoena. McArthur's information was submitted to the NRC Travel Management Branch, which approved the amount of $651.44 for reimbursement.
DISCUSSION The Board should deny TVA's motion to compel the Staff to pay additional fees and costs for McArthur. At the outset, the Board should dismiss the motion to compel because the Board lacks jurisdiction over disputes under the Federal Travel Regulations. Second, the Board should dismiss the motion because TVA lacks standing to raise a claim on behalf of McArthur and has asserted no interest of its own that could be redressed by a Board decision. If the Board does not dismiss the motion, it should deny the motion because the Staff has reimbursed McArthur for all allowable expenses under the Federal Travel Regulations, NRC regulations, and federal statute.
A.
The Board lacks Jurisdiction over disDutes under the Federal Travel Regulations.
The NRC Travel Management Branch looks to the Federal Travel Regulations in making determinations of allowable claims and expenses. Those regulations set forth a specific method for challenging an agency's disallowance of reimbursement for a particular claim. Under 41 C.F.R.
§ 301-52.11, an individual challenging a disallowed claim must file a new claim with the agency, including full itemization and receipts for all disclaimed items, provide a copy of the notice of disallowance, and state the proper authority for the claim if challenging the agency's application of law or statute. If the agency disallows the claim after reconsideration, the individual may then submit the claim for adjudication to the Government Services Agency Board of Contract Appeals (GSA BCA). The Licensing Board is not the appropriate forum to decide whether the NRC Travel Management Branch has acted within its discretion under the Federal Travel Regulations. If McArthur would like to seek additional reimbursement for his testimony, he may bring a challenge to the NRC first, then submit the claim to the BCA if the agency continues to reject his claim. The Board should therefore dismiss TVA's motion to compel for lack of jurisdiction.
B.
TVA lacks standing to request further reimbursement of McArthur's expenses.
TVA has no standing to raise the Issue of payment to McArthur In a motion to compel.
Standing is an essential element in determining whether there is a legitimate role for the Board in dealing with a particular grievance. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Nuclear Fuel Export License for Czech Republic -Temelin Nuclear Power Plants), CLI-94-7,39 NRC 322,331-32 (1994). Although agencies are not constrained by Article Ill concepts of standing, the Commission has generally applied those judicial concepts of standing in NRC proceedings. See Envirocare of Utah, Inc. v.
NRC, 194 F.3d 72, 74 (D.C.Cir. 1999) and Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-25, 18 NRC 327, 332 (1983). In order to establish standing, TVA must demonstrate that: 1) it has suffered an injury-in-fact that is arguably within the zone of interests protected by the governing statute; 2) the injury can be traced to the challenged action; and 3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Id., and Atlas Corp. (Moab, Utah Facility),
LBP-97-9, 45 NRC 414, 423 (1997).
TVA has not established in its motion to compel that it has standing to challenge a reimbursement decision made by the NRC travel office regarding a private citizen. Although McArthur is a former TVA employee, he has retired and is now a private citizen. As such, TVA counsel cannot represent him or his interests in this proceeding. Even if TVA was permitted to represent McArthur, it has not demonstrated that McArthur has requested any such representation.
TVA cannot unilaterally choose to represent the interests of a private individual. If McArthur believes that he is entitled to further reimbursement, his recourse is through direct contact with the Staff and the Travel Management Branch, not through the litigation of TVA's violation of NRC regulations.
TVA has not demonstrated that it has an individual interest In any further reimbursement of McArthur. TVA has not suffered an injury-in-fact that Is within the zone of interests of the relevant statute and regulation. First, TVA has not suffered an injury-In-fact as a result of the NRC's decision regarding McArthurs reimbursement. TVA did not subpoena McArthur as a witness, and as such is not liable to reimburse him for his travel expenses. TVA instead chose to rely upon the NRC Staff's subpoena of McArthur and therefore is not bound to pay any additional costs not reimbursed by the NRC. Any reimbursement of McArthur by TVA would be strictly voluntary and not caused by the NRC's reimbursement decision. The Board should dismiss TVA's motion for this complete failure to demonstrate an interest in the reimbursement decision.
Even if TVA could arguable demonstrate an injury-in-fact, such injury does not fall within the zone of interests of either 10 C.F.R. § 2.720(d) (2002) or 28 U.S.C. § 1821 (c)(1) (2000). Under 10 C.F.R. § 2.720(d), "[wjitnesses summoned by subpoena shall be paid, by the party at whose instance they appear, the fees and mileage paid to witnesses in the district courts of the United States." The only individual who falls under the zone of interests protected by this regulation is McArthur as the subpoenaed witness. TVA, as a party who did not subpoena McArthur, has no interest protected by this regulation. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1821 (c)(1) protects the interests of the witness in reimbursement for travel to and from compelled testimony. That statute in no way provides protection for the party who did not subpoena the witness.
Assuming that TVA could demonstrate an injury-in-fact, that injury is not likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. The redressability element of standing requires a party to show that its claimed actual or threatened injury could be cured by some action of the tribunal.
Sequoyah Fuels Corp. (Gore, Oklahoma, Site Decommissioning), CLI-01 -2,53 NRC 2,14 (2001).
The NRC Travel Management Branch authorized reimbursement of McArthur for expenses authorized by28 U.S.C. § 1821 and the Federal Travel Regulations, and disallowed reimbursement for expenses not permitted by those regulations. The NRC is bound by the statute and regulations and any order by the Board to provide further reimbursement would result in a violation of the law.
Under such circumstances, TVA has failed to demonstrate that its alleged injury could be redressed by a favorable Board decision on its motion to compel.
C.
The NRC has reimbursed McArthur for all allowable actual expenses.
On May 16, 2002, McArthur sent a letter to Brent Marquand, TVA counsel, detailing his expenditures during his trip to Chattanooga. Attachment A. McArthur included the necessary receipts with this letter, including hotel, rental car, gas, and airfare. Attachments B, C, and D.
McArthur's letter clearly indicates that he expected to be reimbursed for his trip by TVA, not by the NRC. However, because the NRC subpoenaed McArthur, Marquand forwarded this information to Staff counsel to arrange for reimbursement. Staff counsel submitted a travel authorization on McArthur's behalf to the Travel Management Branch, seeking approval for the following costs:
hotel, rental car, gas, parking, meals and incidental expenses, personal and business calls, transportation to and from home to the airport, and airfare. See Attachment E.
McArthur submitted his passenger receipt from United Airlines, on which he had used personal frequent flyer miles to purchase his ticket. Attachment D. The receipt indicates that McArthur paid $5.00 for this flight. Initially, the Staff submitted an estimate of the cost of a contract carrier flight from Salt Lake City to Atlanta, and the cost of a flight from Salt Lake City to Chattanooga in order to determine the constructive cost of McArthur's flight. See Attachment E.
However, because McArthur's actual out-of-pocket expense for the flight amounted to only $5.00, the Travel Management Branch was unable to authorize payment of the constructive cost of the flight.
The NRC is prohibited by law from providing further reimbursement to McArthur for his flight to Atlanta from Salt Lake City. First, 28 U.S.C. § 1821(c)(1) limits reimbursement to the "actual expenses of travel." McArthur's actual expenses for his flight from Salt Lake City to Atlanta were
$5.00, as noted on the receipt from United Airlines. See Attachment D. The NRC lacks statutory or regulatory authority to pay McArthur further costs of the flight beyond his actual out-of-pocket expenses.
The Board of Contract Appeals (BCA) and the Comptroller General of the United States have both concluded in a series of cases that the government cannot reimburse individuals for use of personal frequent flyer miles or travel vouchers or coupons for government travel. In In the Matter of Lawrence Baranski, 2001 GSBCA LEXIS 252, 2002-1 BCA (CCH) P31, 684 (Oct. 25, 2001), the BCA sustained the Federal Aviation Administration's determination that Baranski could not be reimbursed for a ticket that he had purchased by redeeming a voucher he had received during personal travel. See Attachment F. Specifically, the BCA stated:
It has long been the case that Government travelers who have acquired airline tickets for their TDY by redemption of frequent flyer miles or coupons acquired on personal travel may not be reimbursed for the supposed value of the tickets because of: (1) the subjectivity that would be involved in ascertaining the value of frequent flyer miles or coupons, (2) the problems of control and accountability in allowing reimbursement for frequent flyer miles and coupons, and (3) the lack of guidance in statute and regulation on how to value such items.
Id. at 3 (citations omitted). Additionally, the government cannot reimburse an individual for use of frequent flyer miles or other travel vouchers or coupons because when the individual uses such items, he incurs no out-of-pocket expenses. In the Matter of Sabah Issa, 1998 GSBCA LEXIS 109 at 7, 98-1 BCA (CCH) P29, 678 (Mar. 30, 1998). Attachment G. The government can only reimburse an individual for actual costs; if the individual fails to show that he incurred ascertainable personal expenses for the ticket in question, the claim for reimbursement must be disclaimed.
Matter of: Martha C. Biemaski, 65 Comp. Gen. 171, 1985 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 5 at 2,4 (Dec. 31, 1985). Attachment H.
Under this line of cases, the only cost for which McArthur could be reimbursed for his flight is his actual expense in redeeming his frequent flyer miles. The United Airlines ticket receipt submitted by McArthur indicated that the redemption cost him $5.00. See Attachment D. Since McArthur was reimbursed for that cost, the NRC has no further obligation to reimburse McArthur for his ticket.
TVA has argued that the Staff failed to make prior arrangements with McArthur to schedule his travel to and from Chattanooga for his testimony. TVA's motion to compel conveniently disregards its own role in this asserted failure. The Staff scheduled McArthur's hearing testimony in the same manner in which it scheduled his deposition testimony: McArthur informed TVA counsel that he would be in or passing through Chattanooga on personal business, and Staff counsel granted TVA's request to schedule McArthur's testimony during that time. Since McArthur, through TVA counsel, indicated he would be involved in personal travel during that time, the Staff made no attempt to contact him to make travel arrangements.
Additionally, TVA counsel represented to Staff counsel that McArthur and his wife would be driving from Utah to Florida, and would simply stop in Chattanooga for the length of his testimony.
If McArthur had driven, he would have been reimbursed for his mileage pursuant to the subpoena.
The Staff cannot reimburse a witness for mileage when the witness has not driven, but instead has used another method of travel, such as flying. If McArthur, either personally or through TVA counsel, had informed the Staff that he intended to fly to Chattanooga, then the Staff could have arranged a contract carrier flight for McArthur. Based on the representations of TVA counsel as to McArthur's travel plans and the Staff's prior experience with McArthur's deposition testimony, the Staff acted reasonably in not arranging for McArthur's travel in advance of his testimony.
Finally, it is disingenuous for TVA to file a motion to compel the Staff to pay additional reimbursement to McArthur. TVA counsel has repeated represented that TVA would voluntarily pay any expenses not reimbursed by the Staff in order to ensure that McArthur did not suffer any out-of-pocket expenses. See Attachment 1. TVA now seeks to avoid such voluntarily repayment by attempting to make the NRC pay for costs it is not authorized by law to pay.
CONCLUSION The NRC Staff respectfully requests that the Licensing Board dismiss TVA's motion to compel further reimbursement of McArthur for lack of jurisdiction and for lack of standing. In the alternative, the Board should deny the motion because the NRC reimbursed McArthur for all allowable expenses under the law.
Respectfully submitted, JZhnr uc ner Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 6' day of September, 2002.
ATTACHMENT A
/;I d
/ b P-oco a I)
"ODPls
(3 r-.e-4-A f,, I c,,.
Q14-pe-V
AA-,t-U r A-%-
V&
$-CC & A.J"f rl-l--i o 4--s e, kv
.4 AID tj 4i
-W.
t7, I
,Q
4c -
kM e-A-r,,--htj a,-
Po t-f -L. T C7 0 g?,
Pt-0 cl -D3 F V4) o 4r AL-e-V Jtzc
/
~'A.--#
,o? 7S-- ft-7 o2 T 7
6v 1 ', s ts) J-j 6I-Al, 4/r-X
-H--
9 X A? C s e :
I- -I/ r1que, (
I oL
/~
l0 2-p 4 Vr f/ -VA 6Cha VI CA-rel
-1 Y/
y I
red t
al
- i. -.t IM-
, Ik A.
- ll If--
p C &I s
-A (, - e =..
iL J
sopo e f A-J
., -1 2v 4-t-.
-Pe-14,'4-er A----s-x-&- -, ;.,ft bit -> ej( d- '
- 1) 'c-, I I C-- /Za
-F.
.,9-I 0 o - 6 0
<j)-a-
'. D~
Ll-
r
-i -
4Dr P rzt~
O4 A-A-
t i-t A,-
I/ I 7
j f, 17 4
L<.O.P-U-alr- -VU I
/- -,r-> + e-I, I t e-A I Foe
,/A; X.
?I,C.
9,3 5--
d...4-% /to
.r., r7D v/59, / D >-
.'44 y-/-
Ad-If 5 2Y 7 sr. ° D 6?.
re 2.1 e
102-
)r -f
.2 F
-7
94-C dc-s
-,ar Z M
Iat,>
g3 S2 -7, o
- Ii
?
to 02o 2eAl-e-
.j -Il
- 13--2
.2 1 7
/ Z.'/ 3
( U.
.3
'~
02 T
4'P, OCZ I I 3 c
(, s "CZ4
-.2 I ip r1/
ic/e 47Lj i L/.
Y Ltz 4-U w e-k f
I X,4-,])
/'/t-
).--/../
S.
6 a
fl, Lo iG, I-Mxo'
/2
.co
'ID t
f s-rU C5-e-1, -f-e-I )
1 -7 q.0 t-eL Co- )
xc--
w kC-Cl
,
/1, X 7
/ b
/
y r/,7 (7 v/k4 14 f7ICz
-even
//13 In,->,
t3 v~"-
LJ -44 G~L y4 4oL h f 4, Ud --4 e, L4.,
IN,t)/C
ATTACHMENT B
GUEST FOLIO 39687 All Charges Folio Page: 1 mail TO: Wilson Mearthur Res. NO. :
Arrive:
Depart:
Room:
Rate:
30038 05/01/2002 05/04/2002 425 -
2KNG USS75.00 12:13pm 12: 00pm, Group:
__Date --
---Description -----------
voucher --------
Amount _
05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/01/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/02/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/03/2002 05/04/2002 05/04/2002 05/04/2002 Local Telephone Local Telephone Stroud's Local Telephone in-Room Dining Long Distance Telephone Long Distance Telephone Long Distance Telephone Transient Comm Revenue state sales Tax Room Occupancy Tax valet Par king In-Room Dining Local Telephone Local Telephone Long Distance Telephone Transient Comm Revenue State Sales Tax ROOM occupancy Tax valet Par king Broad St. Grille Local Telephone Local Telephone Transient Comm Revenue state sales Tax Room occupancy Tax valet Parking Long Distance Telephone Long Distance Telephone vi xxxx2GOB 8/2003. 04283 7516129 7518715 7729-0001 8941019 7688-0001 8016191122 8013759799 8015657133 bl d-425 bl d-425 bld-425 7696-0001 9355323 9359876 8013759799 bld-425 bl d-425 bld-425 4446-0001.
751871.5 8925682 bl d-425 bl d-425 bld-425 9194679251 7048274376 0000023791
.50
.50 14.44
.50 32.31 7.31 5.93 5.93 75.00 6.19 3.00 9.00 25.99
.50
.50 11.43 75.00 6.19 3.00 9.00 29.48
.50o
.50 75.00 6.19 3.00 9.00 5.93 16.93
-438.75 Balance:
.00
ATTACHMENT C
I AVIS, We tqr harder fI 0
II I
II II Thank you for parking at Park 'n JET
-RECEIPT -
TIME OUT AMUOUNT "O. fff DID YOU KNOW WEE...
wash cam?
W cars?
... am clean ongnwe?
hamPoo labdc & capeow?
habe ful mchanicalk "Vices?
I ITi I'
i 141450536 7625483 E MCARTHUR.WILSON WIZ-R7R83Y AWD-A113100 CV CXXXXXXXXXXXXX2608 TRANSACTnON RECORD H.LMAM Cimm Cu N cMS Co I LCeeOn H*26 9 3 0TN 3C36L 33492026ge8 9C30LDE OC1..N 26 GOLrEWANHW AND I
- R4CF4ArURr,/
L SoI C D
U E 0LlB950e 5
PROD 13:2 GALLONS UNLD SALE 5S t2U99 We Appreciate vo44 osiness~ti.
I I
.1I I'I OUT ATL 30APR02/1923 IN ATL 11AY02/1021 1392 MIQ
.00-HRQ 13.67-4 DYL 39.16-1' 1 WKi 205.00- 21 DISCOUNT
.0 -
- S.72/DAY FEE -
ONE WAY FEE/MISC-
- 11.111 FEE FUEL SERVICE LOW TAXABLE SUBTOT -
41 TAX 10.0O0O TOTAL CHARGES 4
- VEHICLE LICENSE FE TX INCL3% ATLANTA CA MI-148f6 MI-161 B 8-t 56.64 1 05.00 4
7.92 40.18 09.74 40.97 50.71 ER TAX ASK FOR DETAILS -
ON YOUR NEXT VISIT
- CONCESSION RECOVERY FEE Thank you hr rwnpg orAvWs we Va"lu ow bwae "maa e ma so hip.
aJ O>
J^
v _ _ _. -
4I a
I
ATTACHMENT D
O MST09OW12 9TU O 13AUWl HOJ 011UA ION I)s
.... t.w..
... ~
D1 WS61051 IIn "Im u
f stwwt
,oo sasn womP e
00 I s^t pt A^T J
f l uHr J
r--------
+
%Anvl IV llxX*x~**tx***
l00130 01 00'0 =
1 "003 s m I 0000 Mlo la ;
- ttttxiitiX~tfRSfiUdt ISC 1100'S MM IMS10'Ot 16001SSIM1L916M3 M ID0 Jim 91f 1 GIM&d{
Ittt~t*~~
dl]333U HnOA SI SIH1 UO: aI-IVAn 10m'
-Upon JAMIN SOL laOIS1lv M 0 Wa
§AN'22 L~~o 9a3q11 %sn JuoW MUM M11al lu 3
mirmam,.
k Wi$-f y lf s
Ytoota IIIS~~
,d33 c,
.S~
,O a^
dab i s o i I*
a0 aI al 0
id
' W i ft@
_0 !
1
- 0.
go
.4 I
.- °w M
1:1
.6 X
40
6
-U ItE
(}
v d W ad 1
- ~
- ti Ib A
l
-XA 5 QDU N I T E D F.
AE A
IDEWIFICATION IS REQUIRED AT CHECK.-tN PNR: QXWLFM lRTHURILSON C MR
,^
- § cc IKJwOAPR DELTA
.FLIGHT: 1592 CLASS: N :.--.'*'.
l gIa TU r SALT LA3KE CTY DEPART:
125P TERMINAL 2- :..
ATLA3NTA ARRIVE: 656P TERMINAL S #3..;,-B
..: !0 l11MAY' DELTA FLIGHT:
705 CLASS: N
¢
§ w
lSA Aq8TLANTA DEPART: 1155A TERMINA3L S:
Ie iSALT LAKE CTY ARRIVE:
148P TERMINAL 2 f11
,8 4w'wl TICKET:
016 2180801958 z
FARE:
USD5.
w
_U 9-f I99M
ATTACHMENT E
F-W tIcstIY f/,t; N.NC FORM 64 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION APPROVEDDYMB: NO.3150192 EXPIRES: 0&=O2 61,)
TRAEL VOUCHER (PART 1)
E std ated birdsr per response to wcoml wi IIt tavoluntry collecton requr 1 txiepin to S P
1012 hour0.0117 days <br />0.281 hours <br />0.00167 weeks <br />3.85066e-4 months <br /> for N
AiC Forrt e4 rtnd c'4A or il4iB NRC use th Inform tb ln to auth oriz T R A V ELd by NARS(P A R T )
PFur1T 1
for official batreL Forward comments regarding burden estimaste to the ArvdNAS181FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS Records Managerrent Branch (T4 ES). U.S Nuclear Regulatory Corrmnflisuon.
- 1. AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 2
SOCIALSECURP YNO.
Washington. DC 20555ir 0.
or bye al-mall to li n i rc gov, and to the Desk Officer. Office of Iionrrintion and Risguatory Affairs. NEOS.10202, (3150192).
263 48.4859 Office of Mantgeient and Budget. Washington. DC 20503 If a mesnse ed to 3 NAME (Lit First, MicI Initial) 4 OiFiC E TEIitIOE Impose an fnorrcrlation collection does not display a crrently valid cMB control Mnrr C.
801 3 79799 wy not condu t or ponsor. and a person Is required to ti RECLAIM VOUCHEE 7 VOUCHER STATUS YE ES A
IA 2314 N 390 East
_ I U
__ bO Provo, UT 84604 a TRAVEL PERIOD(S)
. FROM Im Y"
a TO (M
4D 9 OFF
.DUTY STATION (Cityanu 5late) j RESIDENCE
'rn 04/30/2002 05/04/2002
- Rockville, MD Provo.,UTIt.
TTAKN 13 TYPE OF TRAVEL 14 METHOD OF PAYMENT 1E AIRLINE ACCOMMODATIONS 1
ANNUAL V
TRAVEL 0 CONUsiO MESTIC HEADOUARTERS TO BE PAID BY CT 0 RSTCLAS i
NCNFOREIGN OUTSIDiECONUS
,D E
FTPAYENrT TO 13OTER t
PREIU CLSS 1H OTER X
AJLTERN'ATE ACCO4T TE_________x D FOEN 0 FREEUPO RADIE 16 EXPENSES CLAIMED DCos3 O R
- 3 "ROM NFiC FORM i
)
S AOS i_
i CiRTPrNSS O(NT EA D
17 TRAN'SPORTATION LME~OD OF PAYMENT Is SaPARTAT"O
.SBSSEC N
GTRIGTS AGCT/GOVT ISSUED CARS ASH I& CARRIER iO ET AMOUNT OTHEREXPESES
$646.44 tld-nrdvbelow)
__ I NUMBER PL N.
AJ BU Et PUNE.
TW N.
ItUS f O w
(PAID BY TRAVELER)
- 21. TRAVELER'S CERTIFICATION. I HEREBY ASSIGN TO THE UNITED STATES ANY RIGHT I MAY HAVE AGAINST ANY TAVELER&
L551.H4 PARIES IN CONNECTION WITH REIU BURSABLE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES DESCRIBED ABOVE. PURCHASED R
TA C. TOTAL CLAIM LINDER CASH PA YMENT PROCEDURES I
SI.W 22.
RAD AREFULLY
- 23. TRAVELADVANCE Or vouher hIclus any of tolnoi, mark fwV oprpsa bon) 7TTAL ADVANCE RECEMIED (yinwhor Mur Carw) n LFUND DUE ON UNUSED TICKET. PARTiAL TICKET. ANDOR REFUND SUPP ATM.
$ 0.00 O
REMITTANCE ATTACHED IN THE CHECK NO.
AMOUNT OF.
S OTFE
$0.00
- 24. I CERTIFY THAT THIS VOUCHER IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE EST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND SELUEF AND THAT FOR EXAMINER USE PAYMENT OR CREDIT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY ME SIGNATURE - TRAYEtER _
IDA TE TO SE APLO Wils sTr"i-jky r HcwgteJ T
" DABEDU 25 THIS VOUCAER IS APPROVED Associate &nergl Comsel for Biforcnt, and Aminstrtion TRAVELER q
SIGNATURE-A PPROVIGF9 5JDATA/
6____
Lawrence Y
"l 7// O
- 26. EXAMINER'S ADJUSTMENTS
- 27. TRAVELER DESIGNATION I DESIGNATE TO RECEIVE CASH PAYMENT OF THIS TRAVEL VOUCHER. I ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PAYM ENT ONCE THE IMPREST FUND CASHIER PROPERLY DISBURSESTHE CASH TO MY DESIGNEE.
SIGNATURE - TRAVELER DATE NED BY DA'
- 28. CASH PAYMENT OF TRAVEL VOUCHER (For Cashier Us e)
I
)
RECEIVED CASH IN FOR 29 THIS VOUCHER IS CERTFIED CORRECT AND 7HE AUOUNT OF. S 1PROPER FOR PAYMENT SIGNATURE DAT;E NRC ADGE NUMBER 5
- 30. ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION (For Division of Accounting and Inane& Uri A.
C D COST L
F.(211D.S) a G
120-D) l PURPOSE ORGANIZATION JOB SUBSISTENCE COMMON COST CODE BFY l
CODE CODE AND OTHER CARRIER l
_TOTAL DOMESTIC
-7
-7 C1.A49 LI_
FOREIGN
- F rau d u l en t C la~
m - F sls tlf su icn clan kern h i an ex p e ns e cc o ut w o ~ c a tov eh u re d i n e C Wz hn (2 8 U S.C.2 5 1 4 ) end ma y r esuh o few tneo f no t m o re O n 5 1.0 0 0 X o r p so rrrriet d riot mn o re t ian 6 years of botn (13 U S C. 287, id 1001) fonbrg <di.toaelspe tcasareicludd.
theApprwrgOffelmut haveingbybi edie Dtet oA oo certpfy(2 U..
)
NRC FORM 64 (6-1319)
Thlis trm was detgned uang tnForms MTRAVELERS COPY OAD VANCE COPY QhEMORANDUIM QOTHORZATION D
AD MFUNDS CONTROL
ws I
PAGE OF NRC FORM 64A US. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R1 1W)4.1 TRAVEL VOUCHER (PART2)
EttS:1012 SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND AMOUNT CLAIMED AmedbyNARS 1041 FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE OF FORM SET NAME A FMt MI)
AUNORI1ON NO.
DEPART FROM OFFICE DATE o
flME RA.M McArthur, Wilson C.
04/30/2002 11:00 D P.M DATE ALIrHORIM NDE AMOUNT 2002 NATURE OF EXPENSE 36_5
__OF CLAIMED Official Business Travel on 5/1, 512, 5/3, and 5/11 (considered last day of travel). Personal`TraveI 4130 and 5/4-10) 4130 LV: Residence via POA (Transporation to Airport paid by government 47 17.16 AR: Salt Lake City Airport whether 4/30 or 5/1.)
LV: Salt Lake City Airport via Delta #1592 AR: Atlanta Airort PURPOSE: Subpoenaed by NRC as witness In the Tennessee Valley Authority Hearing.
5111 LV: Atlanta Airport via Delta #705 a0 3 AR: Salt Lake Citv Airport P1,+
IA*.,
LV: Salt Lake City Airport via POA 47 17.16 IAR: Residence SUBSISTENCE: 55/30185 5/1 22.50 Ml&E: 314 day 0 S30.00
~75.00 Lodging: 1 night C $75.00
&12-3 60.00 MI&E: 2 days C $30.00 l
150.00 I Lodging: 2 niahts C $75.00 5/11 MI&E: 314 day C $30.00 22.50 OTHER Rental Car 4 days + miscellaneous charges 1941 27.00L Parkino at Hotel three days Hotel tax: 3 nights C $9.19 27.57 2 Phone calls to residence C $4.00 8.00 3 business phone calles ¢ $0.50 1.50 23.44 Parking at Airport In Salt Lake City 4 days 0 $5.86 23_44 COMPARISON Roundtrip from Salt Lake City, UTto Chattanooga, TN: $1,599.00 There is no contract carrier.
Hotel & Tax: Same C $252.57 MI&E: Same C
$105 Rental Car 4 days C $43.00 + miscellaneous charges: $160.00 Phone Calls to residence: Same C $12.00 TOTAL COMPARISON: $21B3 57 7 ge GRAND TOTAL (Amount to be shown In Item 16.C. Part 1)
RC FORM JA
.1399)
=TRAVELERS COPY OADVANCE COPY DjEMORANM
=
AUITHOA2AMAN OUDT
NRC FORM 273 (5-20DO)
- 1. AUTHORIZATION CO,'
1
$ECUR1ILt 1 -ASTfOPIZAlON NRCW 1 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.R OFFICIAL TRAVEL AUTHORIATION Ngw Q simw El knnd
- l Cl" Sz NFRCM* 5 IOert Dc*
ttr deleflet~antihd L
br 263i-it263484 R
1 1 TRAVELER INFORMATION 4.NAMEOFTRAVELER(Firsttwolnis *nd lt naum) 5 PHONE NO.
S TRAVELPURPOSECODE 7.EMPLO9,EXME Wl C IMcArthur IU1375'979Y 7
W NR-SNT h MML ADDRESS (P.. Bax. Sv"4 t o' 0ce) (FortnmsA)
S FUND COOE omER NON NRC FEDERAL EWLOYEE 2314 N 3YU Lag O
El a~fl STATE ZP COOE Q X OfrTH Provo Ut I 846U4 ori
_ER ACCOUNTING INFORMATION
-t 1Xr tAk We 180.
114 TRAVEL DATES COD£ COD E A ND OMWEA CAA Um Uy 2
7C E7080 S $609.00 S $702.00 S 1,311.00 STRT 0510112002
<!END 05/04/o200 T
la.
PDA&
NtNMBIMF D
1& INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT NUMBER
- 17. CONSULtANt CONTRACT NUMBER l13PD OFIE DiAY
_ _ _ _ _ _ j GRAND TOTAL.
.,3.11.00 INERARY TRAVEL ADVANCE IC ACTUALDrlY POINTS 1P SUMSSTENCE RATE X AEW-O11 D 1A.AMOLWO TI Y
C DATE RZOUIP=
. FROM.
Salt Lake City, UT j YES Z NO S
QATM Ci OTHER B 0-.
Chattanooga TN S
5/30/85 fowt h
- w*f DAM W__ on
_hur
_.MW n 4lc r VE
-:6.)5r
~
~
-21.
ADVANCE ISSUED
_0 DATE C. RETURNTO Salt Lake Citv, UT INr TRAVEL AUTHORITY Reimbursementfsorthenemsuthoedbelows shall be tmhed t the allowancestn NRCMD 14.1, the Federal Tvel Reguttio.
and appcable Conlber General Decisions.
= RDATE TICKET REOUIRED 23 SUBSISTENCE (Spef rate In knary Nod eco) 2THDANI rl A Pot cm-Lodps plus m a tE ndS gj A. Common Cawr Carue Carnat Non-use code (Al aZbsat ra e/odoont a s Onfy h n rts) w Ts Efrno EM C. Special per ftm Mt* Gusfy i vnarks) 24 OTHER Q
0 Govenm-ned Vehicle A Flegomrtm sebe I
Q LExcessbs ase.
No of bags Meals Ictluded
- No-,
(SpeciybIsllcfauzlunchordim r) n F. Otw Snec,41 Convoyances busity in mmarks)
Iodr Ini
- No USE OF PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICtLE a B owUnbows Siensa (Specify Om Ntaat) 5 G Adntageous to Government Ounirty in remaft)
Cents per mrie. _ _
mnual avy to be used gSupshiew, 1v11a:1 E
H Not to exed Coxi of Common Carrer cm, pert l Total hous or dya O
.1GOV3mmen ivcesyaIsble ItallasI. D.
From ITo E
J GentemnentIeVehaSe mttsewimpi s 5X*
0 D G'vm ntCharge Cet 5
YES 5
NO 1ro aplsh hi Block23)
- 25. PURPOSE OF TRAVELIREMARKS nc~al Mam number to w
mh '
ns iesr J
A Subpoenaedby NRC as witnessIntiteTennessee!Vae Auoritny Hearing4 1t trA *R L tfTscK
_ 'E.
Tr.ns..
itnl ro r1I boteLthe f
t:
- d 23B. Actual rate of S75.00. Authorization iot submLtted prlor to travy U
ADMINISTRATIVE INIiUP: NO AULTORIZATION SUBNMTD PRIOR TO TRAVEL 26 FOREIGNTRAVEL-CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS AVAILABIUTY FCSEIGNTRAVEL-CERTIFICATION DF AUTHORIZATKON-Tt Thoffical ettrel daoscrbed abov twas Funds are SYliCittlnt cove? ft to t t
stirn1tt d Clt beein eviewed an the SnW48s neury to th performmril thertof oren son Zed in accordance with the FeelTravelRegulatsas amende NRC Manatagemnt Directive 14 1a.and under the roruions lIp:E on the autho SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE 28 ADMINISTRATIVEAPPROVAL.Th.ckaltraveld'ractdhereut wreiwedand CE2tFICATIONOFFUNDSIAUTHORIZATION-Furidsalressulltedmttort elie t.
ItoeSirsng thei aenev p IniemulI The ofltist tsrveI e1scritedeve ha en ravrre and the ISaSIONs frrorytorhe orrlnance neIsr ls-aprga rwioferoaulhttozeenat scw Feddsl TravetRFlnumlawIl as amereded, MCI Mitnagwrernet Site IerA or Directive A an erthe udzlorste auEtho ATE. 1 4zt/
510f (G
DAT NRC FO_
27
.S
_3C
.~~tVLR COP
.~DACCP
~MMRNU AJHRZTO UI UD OTO NRC FORM 270 (5 2=)
F-11KAVELERS COPY L--IADVANCEj1COPY
[::3MEmclAANoum f-11ALITHORIZATION
-- L-1a AUDIT L-J FUNDS CONTROL 7-7
ATTACHMENT F
Je=b -101 00 Results - baranski "frequent flyer" iniles 0
wysiwyg:IlConten.50Thttp:/lwww.lexis.co..Ji&_md5954633ed6c3c8779fb9 6 6 7 3 7 4 3 7 fac, Source: Leoal> Federal Leaal U.S. > Administrative Aaencv Materials >lndMdual Agencies o
Board of Contract Appeals Decisions (a)
Terms: baranski "frequent flyer miles (Edn Search)
'-Select for FOCUSTM or Delivery El 2001 GSBCA LEXIS 252, *; 2002-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P31,684 In the Matter of LAWRENCE BARANSKI GSBCA No. 15636-TRAV General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals 2001 GSBCA LEXIS 252; 2002-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P31,684 October 25, 2001 CORE TERMS: claimant, travel, ticket, billed, reimbursement, per diem, voucher, transportation, centrally, airline, coupon, frequent, flyer, card, miles, common carrier, Individually, reimbursed, flight, fixed rate, regulation, redemption, emergency, redeemed, travelers, procure, auditor 3UDGES:
E*1] ANTHONY S. BORWICK, Board Judge.
COUNSEL:
Lawrence Baranskl, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Claimant.
Michael J. Upton, Program Director, Office of Financial and Budget Services, Federal Aviation Administration Aeronautical Center, Department of Transportation, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, appearing for Department of Transportation.
OPINION BY: BORWICK OPINION:
ANTHONY S. BORWICK, Board Judge.
In this case, we sustain the agency's determination that claimant could not be reimbursed for an airline ticket used for his travel on temporary duty (TDY) when the claimant had obtained the ticket by redeeming a voucher he had received during personal travel.
On May 16, 2001, the agency authorized claimant's TDY from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to Orlando, Florida, for the period June 10 through June 15, 2001. Instead of purchasing a ticket through an individually billed travel card or a centrally billed account, or by using a Government Travel Requisition (GTR), claimant redeemed flight vouchers he received from United Airlines for relinquishing his seat on another flight Involving personal travel. Claimant explained that he used the vouchers because "I wanted my wife to accompany me to [Florida]. I understood that I could not
[*2) use the government rate for my wife so we elected to travel together.'
Claimant submitted a travel voucher, with a receipt from United Airlines as an attachment, on which he claimed $ 361 as reimbursement for the value of his airline ticket. The agency auditor noted that the receipt did not list a "form of payment" which would have shown whether claimant used a Government charge card or whether the ticket was billed to a centrally billed Government account.
Upon being questioned about the discrepancy, claimant stated that he had used airline vouchers for his TDY. The agency denied reimbursement of the $ 361. Claimant appealed that determination to the Board, and reduced his reimbursement request to $ 312.82.
I of 3 09/0412002 9:53 A
Seard - I 00 Restflts - baranski 'frequent Dyer' miles a
Swysiwyg:lIContenL5Olhttp.Iwww.Iexis.co-.l&_nd5-954633ed6c3c8779fb966 7 3 7 4 3 7 fac.
Claimant also raised another Issue as to the amount of his per diem:
My submitted travel voucher prepared automatically also only allowed me a fixed rate of per diem for my travel days which is contrary to the FAATP amendment 6 which states I was allowed 3/4 of the per diem rate ($ 30) on travel days. The auditor did not look at this.
The agency has promulgated the Federal Aviation Administration Travel Policy (FAATP), which is similar to the Federal Travel Regulation [*3] (FTR). FAATP 301-2.1 provides that the purpose of the travel allowance is "to reasonably reimburse an employee for additional expenses Incurred as a result of performing [TDYJ travel for the FAA."
Here, the agency denied claimant reimbursement of the claimed $ 361 because claimant did not incur the expense.
It has long been the case that Government travelers who have acquired airline tickets for their TDY by redemption of frequent flyer miles or coupons acquired on personal travel may not be reimbursed for the supposed value of the tickets because of: (1) the subjectivity that would be Involved In ascertaining the value of frequent flyer miles or coupons, (2) the problems of control and accountability in allowing reimbursement for frequent flyer miles and coupons, and (3) the lack of guidance in statute and regulation on how to value such Items. Roy W. Roth, GSBCA 14203-TRAV (Feb. 27, 1998); Phillip E. Trickett, B-224054 (Mar. 17, 1987) (construing statute and analogous provisions of the FTR). In other words, in the absence of specific statutory or regulatory guidance, it is not possible to conclude that an employee who redeemed frequent flyer miles or a coupon to obtain E*4] a ticket for Government travel actually Incurred an expense, and It Is not possible, with any certainty, to ascertain the amount of the expense.
In arguing against that result, claimant argues that Board precedent 'appears to have room for Interpretation" and that "as we evolve changes to policy are effected." However, regulation and past construction of similar FTR provisions result In our conclusion that claimant may not be reimbursed for redemption of his flight coupon here.
Claimant also argues that the FAATP is confusing. FAATP 301-51.100, however, requires employees traveling on TDY to use an Individually billed travel card, a centrally billed account, or a GTR to procure common carrier transportation costing more than $ 100. Specific authorization is required if an employee wishes to use cash to pay for common carrier transportation. FAATP 301-2.7. Use of cash generally is authorized when the transportation costs between $ 10 and $ 100, FAATP 301-51.100, or in emergency circumstances where the use of a travel card, centrally billed account, or GTR is not possible. FAATP-301-51.103.
The FAATP, therefore, is clear that, except for common carrier transportation of $ 100 or [*5] less, or in cases of emergency, Government travelers must use an Individually billed travel card, a centrally billed account, or a GTR to procure the transportation. Employees act at their own risk when they fail to adhere to this provision. In denying reimbursement for the $ 361, the agency correctly applied statute and the FAATP.
As to the per diem, the agency has recently advised claimant and the Board that it will pay claimant the difference between the three-quarters day per diem amount and the fixed rate amount It had already paid to claimant, minus the cost of meals consumed provided to claimant by the facility. The per diem issue is moot.
The decision of the agency refusing claimant's reimbursement for the airline ticket is sustained.
ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge 2of 3 09/0412002 9:53 A
ATTACHMENT G
Search -100 Results - baranski 'frequent flyer' niles wysiwygi/ContenL58http.I/www.lexisco-.1&
md& 954633ed6c3c8779fb966737437fac.
Source: jLeal > Federal Lenal-U.S. > Administrative Agency Materials > tndividual Agencies > Board of Contract Appeals Decisions (D Terms: baranski "frequent flyer" miles (Edit Search)
.rSelect for FOCUSTM or Delivery 1998 GSBCA LEXIS 109, *; 98-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P29,678 In the Matter of SABAH A. ISSA GSBCA No. 14140-TRAV General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals 1998 GSBCA LEXIS 109; 98-1 B.C.A. (CCH) P29,678 March 30, 1998 CORE TERMS: voucher, ticket, travel, airline, coupon, flight, reimbursement, carrier, trip, itinerary, regulation, travel agent, reimbursed, reimburse, transportation, reimbursing, frequent, domestic, flyer, vacation, air carriers, purchasing, out-of-pocket, discount, gesture, flown, miles, fare JUDGES:
[*1] ROBERT W. PARKER, Board Judge.
COUNSEL:
Sabah A. Issa, Bettendorf, IA, Claimant.
Bobby A. Derrick, Acting Director, Finance and Accounting Systems Transition, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis Center, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense.
OPINIONBY: PARKER OPINION:
ROBERT W. PARKER, Board Judge.
The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) has requested a decision pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
E 3529 concerning a claim for air travel costs filed by Mr. Sabah A. Issa. In August 1996, Mr. Issa, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army in Moline, Illinois, was Issued airline tickets needed for his temporary duty assignment In Europe. The tickets were issued by a travel agent under contract with the Government at a cost of $ 1,783.75. When Mr. Issa noticed that the tickets Included several flights on Alitalia (an Italian airline), he returned the tickets to the travel agent. Mr.
Issa then obtained tickets on the same flights directly from Alitalla, using a voucher from Alitalla for
$ 882 and paying the balance of $ 819.63 in cash. Mr. Issa had acquired the voucher in connection with a personal vacation. The voucher, Issued on October 1*2] 6, 1995, came with the following letter:
Per our conversation of October 3, 1995 we have reviewed once again the occurrence and, as gesture of good will, we are offering a voucher in the amount of $ 882.00, representing the difference in air fare paid.
The voucher is valid for one year from the date of issue and may be used toward future air transportation on Alitalia service. Since you indicated that you will be traveling to Amman in the near future, I noted the voucher accordingly.
09/04/2002 10:20 A
Search - 100 Results - baranski 'frequent flyer miles vysiwyg:I/ContenL58/httpJ/wwwJexis.co..1&jmdS=9S4633ed6c3cB779fb966737437facx Mr. Issa claimed reimbursement of a total of $ 1,701.63, which included $ 882 for the value of the voucher, $ 795.45 paid in cash for the balance of the flights on Alitalia, and $ 24.18 paid in cash for a round-trip ticket from Moline to Chicago on United Airlines. The agency allowed the claim for the cost of the flight on United Airlines, but denied reimbursement for the flights on Alitalla. The Army denied reimbursement because (1) Mr. Issa should have used the tickets provided by the Government contract travel agent, (2) Mr. Issa should have flown the entire trip on an American-flag carrier which, according to the Army, was available for the European leg of the trip, and (3) the Government [*3] may not reimburse an employee for using a personal travel coupon for Government business.
Discussion Purchasing tickets directly from an airline The Army denied Mr. Issa's claim for reimbursement of the entire cost of the tickets on Alitalla because Mr. Issa purchased the tickets directly from the airline, Instead of obtaining them from the Government contract travel agent. The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), on which the Army relied, provide as follows:
Use of Travel Offices. In arranging official travel, employees are authorized to use the following in accordance with Service regulations:1. Commercial travel offices (CTO) under contract to their respective organizations;2. In-house travel offices;3. General Services Administration (GSA) Travel Management Centers (TMC).
Except as indicated In subparagraph B below [not applicable here], when an employee purchases transportation from a CTO not under contract to the Government, reimbursement is not authorized unless it can be demonstrated that the employee had no alternative.
JTR C2207-A.
Notably, the regulation does not say that employees must use one of the three types of [*4] travel offices; it says that employees are "authorized" to do so. The regulation goes on to say that If an employee purchases transportation from a commercial travel office other than one of those listed, he may not be reimbursed for the ticket. The regulation says nothing at all about purchasing tickets directly from an airline. We know of no provision, either In the JTR or in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), that prohibits an agency from reimbursing an employee for the cost of a ticket purchased directly from an airline. nl
-- - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes-nl The authority to purchase tickets directly from an airline is not without limits. Federal employees are required to use discount fares offered by air carriers under contract with the Government between certain cities when such fares are available. 41 CFR 301-2.2(d)(1)(ii) (1996). This requirement is not at Issue here because no contract air service Is available for the European portions of Mr. Issa's trip.
End Footnotes-------------- --
Requirement to use an American-flag carrier The second reason given by the [*5] Army for not reimbursing Mr. Issa is that he should have flown the European portion of his trip on an American-flag carrier, which the agency believes was available. Paragraph C2204-B of the JTR requires that employees use domestic United States airlines (called "certificated" air carriers) for foreign travel if travel on such carriers Is available. Mr. Issa has stated that, to the best of his knowledge, travel by a domestic airline was unavailable. The record 2 of4 09/04/2002 10.20 A
wac -100 Results - baranski frequent flyer' miles Wysiwyg://ContenL&/http:/www.lexis.co.JI&Jmd5=954633ed6c3c8779fb966737437fac shows that Mr. Issa took the same flights booked for him by the Government's contract travel agent.
The agency's statement that American-flag carriers were available for some of the flights in Europe is somewhat attenuated. The Army explains that, if Mr. Issa had followed his original itinerary for the travel, he could have taken several American-flag carriers, and Implies that Mr. Issa changed his Itinerary so that he would have to fly on Alitalia (and could thus use his personal voucher). Mr. Issa responds that his travel Itinerary was changed due to conflicts in meeting dates and limited availability of Government personnel In Europe. He also points out, correctly, that his travel orders recognized that his itinerary was [*63 subject to change and authorized Mr. Issa to vary it as necessary.
The bottom line here is that the Army travel office does not really know why Mr. Issa changed his Itinerary. Given the language in Mr. Issa's travel orders, which permitted him to vary the itinerary, Mr. Issa's statement that the amended Itinerary was necessary to accomplish the Government's business, and the lack of a statement from one of Mr. Issa's superiors disputing Mr. Issa's explanation, We do not find reasonable the Army's decision to base Mr. Issa's right to reimbursement on a trip which he did not take. Mr. Issa has stated that no American-flag carriers were available for the European portion of the trip that he did take and the Army has provided no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the fact that Mr. Issa flew on a foreign-flag carrier would not prevent him from being reimbursed for the cost of the tickets.
Use of a personal travel voucher Mr. Issa used a personal voucher, which he had acquired In connection with a vacation, to "pay" $
882 toward his tickets on Alitalia. The Army's position Is that, even if reimbursement for the flights Is otherwise permissible, an employee may not be reimbursed [*7] for the value of a coupon or voucher which was not obtained In connection with Government business. Here, we agree with the Army that Mr. Issa may not be reimbursed for the value of his voucher.
The Board has recently considered the Issue of reimbursing employees for such things as frequent flyer miles, coupons and vouchers obtained In connection with personal business. In Roy Roth, GSBCA 14203-TRAV (Feb. 27, 1998), the Board followed the longstanding rule of the Comptroller General that, in the absence of regulations specifically permitting It, the Government may not reimburse employees for the value of frequent flyer miles, coupons or vouchers obtained In connection with personal business. This Is because, when the employee uses one of these Items, he incurs no out-of-pocket expense. In addition, the "value" of such things is subject to Interpretation.
Finally, using coupons and vouchers obtained in connection with personal business for Government travel creates problems of control and accountability. Id. at 2.
Mr. Issa argues that the voucher he used for the AlItalia portion of his trip "was not a free coupon, frequent flyer coupon or a discount coupon. It was compensation [*5] from Alitalla Airlines for money I paid on a previous trip." Although we are sympathetic to Mr. Issa's situation, we do not agree with his argument. Mr. Issa used an airline voucher which he obtained in connection with a dispute with Alitalia concerning personal business. The voucher, which the airline called a "gesture of good will," was about to expire. The extent to which Mr. Issa was actually out-of-pocket and the value of the limited-life coupon are, at best, uncertain. Given the absence of regulations permitting reimbursement for such items, we hold that the Army was reasonable In declining to reimburse Mr.
Issa.
Decision The claim is granted in part. The agency shall reimburse Mr. Issa In the amount of $ 819.63 (the amount of the claim, $ 1701.63, less the amount of the voucher, $ 882). n2 Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n2 This amount includes the $ 24.18 for domestic airfare which the agency agrees is due Mr. Issa. If 3 of4 09/04/2002 10:20 A'
Search - I100 Results - baranski 'frequent flyer' miles v/ysiwygJI/Content.58/httpJ//wwwJexis.co...1&_.md5=954633ed6c3c8779fb96 737437f~&
Mr. Issa has already received reimbursement for this Item, the agency should subtract $ 24.18 from the award.
End Footnotes -----------------
ROBERT E*9J W. PARKER Board.Judge Source: Le
>I Federal Leoal - U.S.> Administrative Aaency Materials. Indiiua gncies. Board of Contrac Appeals Decisions (D Terms: baranskl "frequent flyer' miles (Edit earc View: Full Date/Time: Wednesday, September 4,2002-9:5.4AMAEDT Aboul LexisNexis I Terms and conditions Copyricht C 2002 LexlsNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All fights reserved.
09/0412002 10.20 A
ATTACHMENT H
Search - 21 Results - biernasi 'frequent flyer wysiwyg:/Content.76/http://wwwjexis.co.-B&md=7db4242323c9a84808842ee860daI i.
Source: Lecal > Federal Legal - U.S. > Administrative Agencv Materials > US Comptroller General Decisions CD Terms: biernaski "frequent flyer" lEdit Search)
'Select for FOCUSrM or Delivery D
65 Comp. Gen. 171; 1985 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 5,
- MAlTER OF: Martha C. Blernaski B-215897 Comptroller General of the United States 65 Comp. Gen. 171; 1985 U.S. Comp. Gen. LEXIS 5 December 31, 1985 CORE TERMS: ticket, airline, travel, constructive, reimbursement, consulting firm, legal obligation, transportation, reimbursed, regulation, civilian, personal expense, free ticket, contructive, reimburse, procured, attend HEADNOTES:
1*11 An employee who used a free airline ticket issued because of her husband's membership In an airline's frequent travelers club for travel on Government business may not be reimbursed the constructive cost of the airline ticket since she has not demonstrated that she paid for that ticket or had a legal obligation to do so. Thus it is concluded that she acquired the transportation at no direct personal expense.
OPINION:
The Farm Credit Administration has requested an advance decision concerning the propriety of payment of the constructive cost of airfare to Mrs. Martha (Marilyn) C. Biernaski. nl Mrs. Blernaski may not be reimbursed the constructive expense Incurred In attending the conference since she acquired the airline ticket In question at no direct personal expense.
nl This decision is Issued in response to a request from Victor L. Summers, Chief, Budget and Accounts Section, Administrative Division, Farm Credit Administration.
Mrs. Blernaski, a former employee of the Farm Credit Administration, was Issued a Govemment Travel Request and purchased an airline ticket to attend a conference In San Diego, California.
However, she did not use that ticket n2 but instead used a ticket [*2] Issued to her husband as a member of the Frequent Travelers Club of Eastern Airlines. She claims reimbursement of the constructive cost that the Farm Credit Administration would have paid had she not used the ticket obtained by her husband for travel to attend the conference In San Diego, California. Mrs. Biernaski has based her claim on the fact that the Farm Credit Administration informed her that she could use whatever means of transportation she wished and they would reimburse her on an actual or constructive basis.
n2 The coach ticket that was procured with the Government Travel Request was returned to the airline and the cost of it was refunded to the Farm Credit Administration.
Apparently Mrs. Biernaski was not aware that when the Government reimburses an employee for travel expenses on a contructive basis only actual costs Incurred by the employee may be reimbursed and that reimbursement Is limited to the contructive amount it would have cost had the Govemment procured the transportation directly.
When informed that reimbursement on a constructive basis required the employee to present 09/04/2002 1126 A
Sech - 21 Results - biernaski 'frequent flyer' wysiwyg t/ContnL7Iht:/lwww.exis.co.JB& _mdS=7db4242323c9a848O8842ee86Odal-F evidence of expenses actually incurred, Mrs. Blernaski submitted a letter from [*3] her husband's consulting firm Indicating that she had agreed to pay $600 for use of the free ticket. The letter Indicates that no payment had been received by the consulting firm, but that It was expected.
As to the travel of civilian employees of the Government, i U.S.C. E-57 provides that 'only actual and necessary travel expenses may be allowed * * *." Implementing regulations contained In paragraph 1-2.1, Federal Travel Regulations, FPMR 101-7, Incorp. by ref. 41 C.F.R. § 101-7.003 (1983), provide that, "Transportation expenses which the Government may pay either direct or by reimbursement Include fares * *
- and other expenses."
Under these provisions of statute and regulation, civilian employees may not be allowed gratuitous payments, but they may be allowed reimbursement of travel expenses necessarily incurred by them In complying with travel requirements Imposed upon them by the Government. See, for example, Bornhoft v. United States. 137 Ct. Cl. 134 (1956): and Caotaln Dene B. Stratton. USN. 56 Com2.
Gen. 321 (1977).
Although Mrs. Blernaski claims that she owes her husband's consulting firm $600 for the free airline ticket issued to him by Eastern Airlines, [*4] there Is no evidence that a legal obligation has arisen or that payment has been made. In that connection we note particularly that the free ticket was issued because Mr. Biernaski was a member of the Frequent Travelers Club; that It was not Issued to his consulting firm; and that It has not been demonstrated to be the subject of a legal obligation for payment. Since we are unable to conclude that Mrs. Blernaski Incurred any ascertainable personal expenses for the ticket in question her claim should be disallowed.
Source: Lenal > Federal Legal - U.S. > Administrative Agencv Materials > US Comptroller General Decisions $I Terms: biernaski "frequent flyer" (Edit Search)
View: Full Dale/Time: Wednesday, September 4, 2002 - 11:27 AM EDT About LexisNexis I Terms and Conditions Coovnoht 0 2002 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
20112 09104/2002 11:26 A
ATTACHMENT I
- I Tennessee Valley Authority. 400 West Sumnit Hill DrMv. Knoxville. Tennessee 37902-1401 May 23, 2002 Jennifer M. Euchner, Esq. (By Overnight Messenger)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738 Re:
In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 & 3)
Dear Ms. Euchner:
We are enclosing the expenses incurred by Dr. McArthur when he appeared to testify pursuant to the NRC Staff's subpoena. As we discussed, it is appropriate for the Staff to reimburse Dr. McArhur's expenses. We would appreciate it if you would let us know how you calculate his reimbursement, so we can determine if TVA can pay any of the nonreimbursed portion.
As we discussed, we are also enclosing a copy of the Supervisor's Handbook, marked Bates Nos. GF00001-62, which should help provide a key explanation of how TVA determines competitive levels.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, Brent R. Marquand Senior Litigation Attorney Telephone 865-632-4251 Facsimile 865-632-6718 Enclosures cc:
Dr. Wilson C. McArthur 2314 North 390 East Provo, Utah 84604 003695298
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1,2, 3)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-390-CivP; 50-327-CivP; 50-328-CivP; 50-259-CivP; 50-260-CivP; 50-296-CivP ASLBP No. 01-791-01-CivP EA 99-234 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of UNRC STAFF RESPONSE TO TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO COMPEL" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail; through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal system as indicated by an asterisk (*), or by electronic mail as indicated by a double asterisk (**) on this 6th day of September, 2002.
Administrative Judge **
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Ann Marshall Young U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Thomas F. Fine **
Brent R. Marquand
- John E. Slater **
Barbara S. Maxwell Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37901-1401 Administrative Judge
- Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of the Secretary
- ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-16C1 Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: 0-1 6C1 Washington, D.C. 20555 David Repka Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 nnifer M Euchner ounseifr NRC Staff