In the Matter of LAMAR D.

June 23, 2025

CBCA 8374-RELO

In the Matter of LAMAR D.

Lamar D., Claimant.

First Lieutenant Amanda M. Axarlis, Division Chief, Financial Operations, United

States Air Force Academy, Department of the Air Force, CO, appearing for Department of

the Air Force.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

Claimant is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (the agency). He asks

the Board to review the agency’s denial of reimbursement of an additional thirty days of

temporary quarters subsistence expense (TQSE) incurred when he completed a permanent

change of station (PCS) from a duty station outside the continental United States to a new

duty station within the continental United States. We find that claimant is entitled to receive

reimbursement for the additional thirty days of TQSE expenses incurred.

Background

Claimant’s travel orders were issued on September 5, 2023. Block 14a, regarding

TQSE, provides selections for “YES,” “NO,” “ACTUAL EXPENSE,” and “FIXED.” “NO”

was selected, indicating claimant was not authorized to receive reimbursement for TQSE.

Agency Response, Exhibit 8 at 7.1 On September 14, 2023, before claimant’s departure, his

travel orders were amended to authorize reimbursement of thirty days of “FIXED” TQSE.

Id. at 10. There is no evidence in the record that claimant was allowed to choose between

1

All exhibits are attached to the agency response unless otherwise noted.

CBCA 8374-RELO

2

actual expense and fixed TQSE. On December 31, 2023, claimant completed his PCS.

Agency Response ¶ 1.

In January 2024, claimant requested an extension of TQSE for an additional thirty

days, as he was experiencing difficulty securing permanent housing and delays in the delivery

of his household goods. Exhibit 3 at 3. On January 25, 2024, claimant’s Senior Enlisted

Leader approved an extension of fixed TQSE for an additional thirty days for a total of sixty

days to allow claimant to continue to search for permanent housing. See id.; Exhibit 10 at 4;

Agency Response ¶ 2. On the same date, claimant submitted his request for supervisory

approval to the agency, with claimant requesting, “Please confirm receipt and let me know

if this will suffice and be approved for my lodging extension.” Exhibit 3 at 2. Later that day,

claimant was informed via email: “Of course, that will be accept[ed] by the processing

center [Travel Pay Center Ellsworth].” Id. Relying upon this communication, claimant

extended his family’s stay in temporary quarters, incurring expenses for an additional thirty

days. Agency Response ¶ 3.

On January 24, 2024, claimant filed travel vouchers requesting payment of the initial

thirty days of TQSE, for which he received reimbursement on May 17, 2024. Exhibit 6.

Between February and September 2024, claimant submitted supplemental vouchers

requesting payment of $8688.39 for the additional thirty days of the previously authorized

TQSE and $29.00 for a non-reimbursable late payment charge posted on his government

travel card.2 Agency Response ¶ 3; see Exhibits 3 at 3, 10 at 4. The agency denied

reimbursement for the additional thirty days of TQSE and the late payment charge for

reasons stated below.

Discussion

Pursuant to the regulations in effect when claimant completed his PCS, there are two

types of TQSE allowances—lump sum (TQSE (LS))3 and actual expense (TQSE (AE)).

Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) 054201 (Dec. 2023).4 The civilian employee is paid for

2

In response to a Board inquiry, claimant has confirmed that these amounts

remain owing on his government travel card.

3

TQSE (LS) is often referred to in travel orders, on other forms, and in

communications as fixed TQSE, as is the case here.

4

The agency cites to the current version of the JTR. We cite to the version in

effect on the day that the employee reported for duty at the new duty station. 41 CFR 302-2.3

(2023); see Tracy H., CBCA 6959-RELO, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,790, at 183,463 n.1; Emelda J.

CBCA 8374-RELO

3

TQSE (LS) “before the occupancy of temporary lodging, eliminating the after-the-fact

voucher process.” JTR 054208-A.1. A civilian employee, if offered the TQSE (LS) option,

“must choose between it and TQSE (AE) and the travel order must document that decision.”

Id. 054208-A.3.

The agency denied claimant’s voucher for reimbursement of the additional thirty days

of TQSE because authorization of fixed TQSE is limited to thirty days. Agency Response ¶ 4

(citing JTR 054208-B.3). The agency also denied reimbursement because a civilian

employee may not be paid for additional days beyond those originally authorized, even if he

or she erroneously inferred or was told that TQSE (LS) would continue beyond thirty days.

Agency Response ¶ 4 (citing JTR 054208-D).

In Scott T. Downey, CBCA 6777-RELO, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,621, the Board resolved a

case with circumstances similar to this case. The employee’s original travel orders

authorized TQSE but did not specify whether reimbursement would be fixed (lump sum) or

based on actual expenses and did not specify the number of days authorized. Id. at 182,644.

After the employee reported to his new station, emails from the officer in charge of the

employee’s unit approved the employee’s request for additional TQSE days, and amended

orders were ultimately issued for a total of 120 days of TQSE. Id. After the employee

completed his PCS, his orders were amended again to specify that TQSE would be fixed for

a period of thirty days. Id. at 182,644-45.

The employee in Downey thereafter submitted his voucher and received

reimbursement for thirty days of TQSE (LS). Downey, 20-1 BCA at 182,645. When he

sought reimbursement for sixty additional days of TQSE, the agency denied reimbursement.

The agency determined that, pursuant to the JTR in effect at that time, once TQSE (LS) is

selected, the employee may not be paid any additional TQSE even if the TQSE (LS) is not

adequate to cover TQSE expenses because TQSE (LS) is limited to no more than thirty days

with no extensions under any circumstances. Id.

The TQSE election regulation cited in Downey mirrors the JTR 054201 provision

applicable here, which reads as follows:

Once the civilian employee chooses a TQSE method, the selection may not be

changed if the travel order . . . has been executed, unless an exception is

warranted based on clerical error. An exception is allowed if all of the facts

Hadley, CBCA 4264-RELO, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,930, at 175,610 n.1.

CBCA 8374-RELO

4

and circumstances support that a provision was intended and was omitted in

error when preparing the order.

In Downey, the Board concluded that an exception to the JTR was warranted, stating:

The facts and circumstances here clearly demonstrate that the agency erred

when preparing the original orders. The orders were silent regarding the type

of TQSE authorized, and they did not specify the number of days. The

amended orders, on the other hand, sought to limit TQSE to thirty days, but

only after claimant had spent more than thirty days in temporary quarters.

Furthermore, the agency reimbursed claimant a . . . lump sum for temporary

quarters. . . . Payments for lump sum TQSE are paid in advance, not after the

fact. Finally, if the agency had authorized claimant to be reimbursed according

to the fixed method, it would have been required to allow him to choose

between the two reimbursement methods. . . . There is no evidence in the

record that this choice was offered to claimant prior to his PCS. The fact that

he sought multiple additional TQSE authorizations—which were approved by

the gaining unit—seems to weigh against a lump sum choice. These

inconsistencies show that an error occurred during preparation of claimant’s

orders, which obfuscated the agency’s intentions.

20-1 BCA at 182,646.

The Board in Downey remanded the case to the agency to determine reimbursement

pursuant to the TQSE (AE) method. Downey, 20-1 BCA at 182,646. The instant case

presents similar circumstances. Claimant’s initial orders did not authorize TQSE but were

amended before departure to authorize thirty days of fixed TQSE. After claimant completed

his travel, he was subsequently authorized an additional thirty days. He was then reimbursed

for fixed TQSE after temporary quarters were occupied for more than thirty days, even

though the regulations required payment of fixed TQSE before temporary quarters are

occupied.

As in Downey, the fact that claimant sought additional TQSE

authorizations—which were approved, but for which he was subsequently denied

reimbursement—seems to weigh against claimant having made a lump sum choice. Claimant

was not paid for fixed TQSE in advance, as required by regulation, but only after he

completed his PCS. In addition, there is no evidence that claimant was allowed to choose

between the two reimbursement methods, also required by regulation.

We find that based on all of these inconsistencies, an error occurred during the

preparation of claimant’s orders, which obfuscated the agency’s adherence to regulations and

resulted in the authorization of TQSE (LS) rather than TQSA (AE). Claimant is entitled to

CBCA 8374-RELO

5

be reimbursed for TQSE (AE) for the additional thirty days upon the agency’s determination

of the sufficiency of claimant’s documentation of expenses. Claimant is also entitled to

reimbursement of the late payment fee, 41 CFR 301-52.19, which is comprised of two

components: (1) a calculation using the prevailing Prompt Payment Act interest rate or a flat

fee as described in 41 CFR 301-52.20(a) and(b); and (2) an amount equivalent to any late

payment charge that the card contractor would have been able to charge.

41 CFR 301-52.20(c); see Dennis B., CBCA 6394-TRAV, 19-1 BCA ¶ 37,343, at

181,600-01.

Decision

The claim is granted. The case is remanded to the agency to determine reimbursement

consistent with this decision.

Allan H. Goodman

ALLAN H. GOODMAN

Board Judge