# In the Matter of GAMTESSA ADDISU

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Acbca%3A9c143d273e7e66e1

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

October 15, 2015

CBCA 4774-RELO

In the Matter of GAMTESSA ADDISU

Gamtessa Addisu, Bloomington, IN, Claimant.
Alisa W. James, Attorney Advisor, Blue Grass Army Depot, Department of the Army,
Richmond, KY, appearing for Department of the Army.
LESTER, Board Judge.
Claimant, Gamtessa Addisu, complains that the Department of the Army (Army)
wrongly terminated him from federal employment based upon a false allegation of fraud
relating to his temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) reimbursements. He requests
that we conduct a full review of the Army’s handling of his travel claim and the investigation
that led to his removal from federal service, as well as of the Army’s review of his
government credit card use and payments. For the reasons discussed below, we must dismiss
much of his request as beyond our authority, and we deny his request for TQSE payments
beyond that which the agency may already have made.
Background
Mr. Addisu was assigned a permanent change of station (PCS) from Fort McKoy,
Wisconsin, to the Blue Grass Army Depot in Richmond, Kentucky. When issuing Mr.
Addisu’s travel orders on June 5, 2014, the Army authorized thirty days of TQSE on an
actual expense (AE) basis. The travel orders identified Mr. Addisu’s spouse and three
children as his dependents and indicated that, while Mr. Addisu would be departing from his
official station in Fort McKoy, his dependents would travel from their home address in
Bloomington, Indiana.

CBCA 4774-RELO

2

On June 9, 2014, Mr. Addisu signed and submitted a DD Form 1351-2 travel voucher
for reimbursement of travel expenses of $750 for his trip from Fort McKoy to Richmond,
with a “rest stop” in Bloomington along the way. In Block 12 of the form, Mr. Addisu was
asked whether he was “accompanied” or “unaccompanied” by his dependents, and Mr.
Addisu selected the “accompanied” box, listing the names of his wife and his three children
as his “accompanied” dependents. In Block 15a of the form, he stated that “I certify that I
have discontinued our residence at old PDS and have established a new residence at new
PDS.”
On July 7, 2014, Mr. Addisu signed and submitted another DD Form 1351-2 travel
voucher reimbursement request, again saying that his wife and three children had
accompanied him to his new duty station and seeking $3729.40 in TQSE. On his
accompanying DD Form 2912, titled “Claim for Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expense
(TQSE) (Sub-voucher),” Mr. Addisu expressly indicated in blocks 6a and 6b that both he and
his dependents “vacated old residence” on May 30, 2014. He also indicated in blocks 7a and
7b that both he and his dependents “occupied new residence” on June 1, 2014, but the
worksheet accompanying the sub-voucher made clear that he rented a hotel room in
Richmond, Kentucky, from June 1 through 30, 2014, at costs ranging from $44.99 to $65.44
per night.1 As support for the hotel charges, Mr. Addisu attached two folios from the Red
Roof Inn in Richmond, showing the charges for each night from June 1 through 30 and
indicating that the charges were paid by credit card. He claimed meal costs of $70 for each
day from June 1 through 30 – $15.00 for breakfast each day, $20.00 for lunch, and $35.00
for dinner. The DD Form 2912 that Mr. Addisu signed contained the following notice to the
employee: “There are severe criminal and civil penalties for knowingly submitting a false,
fictitious, or fraudulent claim (U.S. Code, Title 18, Sections 267 and 1001; and Title 31,
Section 3729).”
Then, on August 7, 2014, Mr. Addisu submitted another DD Form 1351-2 travel
voucher reimbursement request and DD Form 2912 TQSE sub-voucher, seeking an
additional $6938.61 in TQSE actual expenses for the period from July 1 through 28, 2014.2
Although he claimed lodging expenses for each night during this period, the only supporting
lodging folios that were submitted (as an attachment to his accompanying DD Form 2912)
indicated hotel charges in Richmond on July 1 and 2, 2014, at $55.24 per night; in Berea,
1

Mr. Addisu later indicated to an investigator that, by saying that he had occupied
a new residence, he meant only that he had arrived at his new duty station at the Blue Grass
Army Depot.
2

Mr. Addisu indicated in an e-mail message to a supervisor dated July 29, 2014, that
he moved out of the hotel and into a permanent residence on July 28, 2014.

CBCA 4774-RELO

3

Kentucky, from July 6 through 12, 2014, at $41.39 per night; and in Richmond again from
July 24 through 28, 2014, with nightly charges ranging from $50.80 to $60.77. He also
sought reimbursement of $195 in meal costs each day from July 1 through 28, 2014 – $55.00
for breakfast each day, $70.00 for lunch, and $70.00 for dinner. In his reimbursement
request, he again indicated that the lodging and meals were for himself and four dependents.
On August 20, 2014, one of Mr. Addisu’s supervisors was reviewing Mr. Addisu’s
August 7, 2014, voucher and questioned whether Mr. Addisu’s family was actually residing
in Kentucky. He also questioned why all meal claims annotated on his DD Form 2912 ended
in “.00” when actual expenses, rather than rounded or estimated figures, were to be listed.
When questioned about the expenses, Mr. Addisu indicated that he had researched his
entitlements and that the claims were correct as listed.
The Army paid some of Mr. Addisu’s TQSE reimbursement requests, though the
record is unclear as to the scope of those payments.
On September 15, 2014, the Chief of the Quality Assurance Division for the Blue
Grass Army Depot (QAD Chief) asked Mr. Addisu where his family was living. Mr. Addisu
responded that his family was living in Indiana, a representation that the QAD Chief believed
contradicted the information on Mr. Addisu’s DD Form 2912 submissions.
An investigator for the Directorate of Emergency Services at the Blue Grass Army
Depot issued an investigative report on December 14, 2014, in which he asserted that he was
conducting two investigations into Mr. Addisu’s activities: one dealing with the veracity of
Mr. Addisu’s travel voucher reimbursement requests, and another dealing with alleged
misuse of a government travel credit card. Focusing on the government travel credit card
investigation, the investigator reported that Mr. Addisu had violated an Army regulation
when he used his government travel credit card to purchase unauthorized items between
January and June 2014. In the report, the investigator also determined that Mr. Addisu was
delinquent in paying the balance on his government credit card.
On January 8, 2015, the investigator interviewed Mr. Addisu, who acknowledged that,
contrary to the representations on his travel vouchers, his dependents had not traveled with
him to Richmond. Mr. Addisu indicated that he had represented on his travel vouchers that
his dependents had accompanied him because he intended for them to come to Richmond at
some future date. Mr. Addisu also explained the reasons that his meals costs had risen
significantly in his TQSE reimbursement request between his July 7, 2014, request and his
August 7, 2014, request because “I researched the regulation and found I was entitled to the
greater amount because of my dependents. I purchased gift cards for restaurants in order to
take home for my family to have meals.”

CBCA 4774-RELO

4

Subsequently, on January 12, 2015, the investigator issued another investigative
report, this time finding that Mr. Addisu had violated the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) by
making false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims in his DD Form 1351-2 travel vouchers.3 The
investigator determined that Mr. Addisu had falsely represented in those forms that he was
being accompanied by his dependents for purposes of obtaining travel reimbursements and
that, contrary to Mr. Addisu’s representations on the forms, his family had stayed in
Bloomington and had not traveled to Richmond. In addition, the investigator determined that
Mr. Addisu had purchased restaurant gift cards, which he would then take to his family in
Bloomington, and then claimed the amounts spent for the gift cards as his “meal” travel costs
in his reimbursement forms.
On March 19, 2015, the QAD Chief issued a Notice of Proposed Removal, which was
presented to Mr. Addisu on March 24, 2015, proposing Mr. Addisu’s removal from federal
service based upon three charges: (1) Mr. Addisu had falsified information on his travel
vouchers; (2) he had misused a government travel credit card, including using it to purchase
gift cards for which he then sought reimbursement as TQSE; and (3) he had failed to pay his
government travel credit card in a timely manner. On May 5, 2015, after having provided
Mr. Addisu an opportunity to respond to the notice, the agency issued a Notice of Removal,
removing Mr. Addisu from federal service and informing him that he was entitled to file an
appeal of the removal decision with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
Subsequently, on May 26, 2015, Mr. Addisu informed the agency by e-mail message
that he was adding references to his travel reimbursements and the investigation against him
to a previously submitted Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint that was pending
before the agency. He asserted that the manner in which the agency conducted the
investigation evidenced that his supervisors were acting in a discriminatory manner. The
record does not indicate whether the EEO matter has been resolved or whether Mr. Addisu
has filed any appeal of his removal with the MSPB or in any other forum.
On May 27, 2015, Mr. Addisu submitted his claim to this Board. He asserts that he
was “wrongfully terminated from federal employment” based upon alleged fraud relating to
his TQSE reimbursements. He also complains “that the agency has illegally garnished [his]

3

It is unclear which section(s) of the JTR the investigator believes Mr. Addisu
violated. The investigator cites only to a section of Army Regulation 190-11, which
addresses physical security of arms, ammunition, and explosives, and a section of Army
Regulation 380-67 dealing with the clearance and sensitive position standard under personnel
security programs. These Army regulations seemingly have nothing to do with misstatements
on forms seeking TQSE reimbursement.

CBCA 4774-RELO

5

wages without any notification based on the government travel card balance” and that the
agency’s failure to pay his TQSE has harmed his ability to pay the balance on his government
credit card. He has asked us to conduct “a full review of the agencies [sic] handling of [his]
travel claim.”
Discussion
I.

Mr. Addisu’s Request for a Review of the Agency’s Investigation

Mr. Addisu has asked us to undertake a broad review not only of his TQSE claim, but
also of the Army’s investigation of his travel claim and of associated matters that he believes
directly relate to his removal from federal service. Although we possess authority to review
the agency’s decision not to pay TQSE, we lack authority to undertake any broader review
of the agency’s activities.
Pursuant to statute, the Administrator of General Services possesses the authority to
resolve “claims involving expenses incurred by Federal civilian employees for official travel
and transportation, and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station.”
31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(3) (2012). Through a delegation from the Administrator, this Board is
authorized to exercise that authority. Mark J. Lumer, CBCA 1079-TRAV, 08-1 BCA
¶ 33,819, at 167,398. “The Board’s authority in this matter or in any other case regarding
travel or relocation, therefore, is by delegation of statutory authority.” Christopher G. Cover,
CBCA 3875-RELO, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,892, at 175,464. As our predecessor board for travel
and relocation matters, the General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA), explained
in Eric B. Fort, GSBCA 16302-TRAV, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,541 (2003), that authority is limited
to the settlement of travel claims and does not encompass more expansive reviews of
employment disputes or the propriety of agency investigations:
Our authority is far more circumscribed than [claimant] perceives. We have
the power, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3702 and a delegation of authority from the
Administrator of General Services, to “settle claims involving expenses
incurred by Federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation,
and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station.” 31
U.S.C. § 3702(a)(3) (2000). Beyond that, however, the Board cannot do the
sorts of things [claimant] wants us to do. As a quasi-judicial tribunal, the
Board does not perform independent investigations with regard to cases
presented to it. Marion T. Silva, GSBCA 15673-RELO, 02-1 BCA ¶ 31,815;
Pamela R. Harris, GSBCA 15645-RELO, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,640. Whether the
[agency’s] duplicate payments on [claimant’s] travel vouchers, and its methods
for dealing with the issue, are systemic problems worthy of investigation

CBCA 4774-RELO

6

and/or disciplinary action is a question we must leave to agency management.
Similarly, we have no authority to direct an agency to modify in any way an
employee’s personnel files or to pay an employee in advance for expenses of
official travel he undertakes.
Id. at 160,973.
Accordingly, we are authorized to review Mr. Addisu’s challenge to the Army’s
decision not to pay all of the TQSE that Mr. Addisu requested. Beyond that, Mr. Addisu will
have to look to other fora for relief. He has submitted an EEO complaint to the agency
alleging discrimination and, through the language contained in his Notice of Removal, is
aware of his appeal rights to the MSPB arising out of his removal from federal service. We
have no basis upon which to interfere in such matters.
II.

Mr. Addisu’s TQSE Claim
A.

TQSE After the Authorized TQSE Period Expired

Mr. Addisu seeks to recover TQSE from June 1 through July 28, 2014, a period of
fifty-seven days. Yet, his travel orders only authorized thirty days of TQSE. “A TQSE
allowance ‘is intended to reimburse [a transferred] employee reasonably and equitably for
subsistence expenses incurred when it is necessary to occupy temporary quarters.’” Melinda
Slaughter, CBCA 754-RELO, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,633, at 166,579 (quoting 41 CFR 302-6.3
(2006)). Nevertheless, “[i]t is totally within the discretion of the agency whether or not to
authorize TQSE.” Scott E. Beemer, CBCA 4250-RELO, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,960, at 175,712
(quoting Neal K. Matsumura, CBCA 2341-RELO, 11-2 BCA ¶ 34,829, at 171,363); see
41 CFR 302-6.6 (2014) (“Must my agency authorize payment of a TQSE allowance? No,
your agency determines whether it is in the Government’s interest to pay TQSE.”). “TQSE
is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 5724a(c)(1), which ‘says that “an agency may pay” these benefits,’
but does not have to do so.” Beemer, 15-1 BCA at 175,712 (quoting Christopher Sickler,
CBCA 1010-RELO, 08-1 BCA ¶ 33,825, at 167,421 (italics in original)). Further, “once the
agency has authorized TQSE, it retains broad discretion to decide whether ‘to grant
extensions of TQSE,’ and that exercise of discretion ‘will not be overturned unless that
decision is found to have been arbitrary and capricious.’” Stephen J. Collier, CBCA
4395-RELO, 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,979, at 175,801 (quoting Rajiv R. Singh, GSBCA 16892-RELO,
06-2 BCA ¶ 33,418, at 165,672). Here, Mr. Addisu has identified nothing arbitrary or
capricious about the agency’s decision to grant only thirty days of TQSE and not to extend
that benefit for an additional period of time.

CBCA 4774-RELO
B.

7

Mr. Addisu’s Meal Reimbursement Requests

Because the agency granted Mr. Addisu only thirty days of TQSE, we need only
consider his TQSE claim for the period running from June 1 through June 30, 2014.
Nevertheless, because all of his meal requests from June 1 through July 28, 2014, suffer from
the same defect, we address all of them here.
As previously discussed, in his reimbursement request for meals for the month of June
2014, Mr. Addisu claimed $15.00 for breakfast each day during that period, $20.00 for lunch,
and $35.00 for dinner. These amounts never varied. During the next month, Mr. Addisu
significantly increased the amount of his daily meal requests, but again claimed exactly the
same amounts each day: $55.00 for breakfast, $70.00 for lunch, and $70.00 for dinner.
“TQSE reimbursement is limited to actual expenses incurred, up to the maximum
authorized, provided the expenses are directly related to temporary quarters occupancy, are
reasonable in amount, and are substantiated.” Adil F. Khan, GSBCA 15756-RELO, 02-2
BCA ¶ 31,966, at 157,908. A “[c]laimant is not entitled to reimbursement for the claimed
meal expenses [if] he has not substantiated that the claimed costs were . . . actual expenses”
for actual meals during the TQSE period. Id. Further, “even where some amounts must have
been spent for meals, we deny reimbursement where there is no credible basis upon which
the agency can determine what those amounts actually were. Absent evidence of this nature,
the agency is not required to approve any payment at all.” Willie J. Garrard, GSBCA
15811-RELO, 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,935, at 157,767 (citing Donald Mixon, GSBCA 14957-RELO,
00-1 BCA ¶ 30,606, at 151,117 (1999)); see Mark G. Derby, GSBCA 15682-RELO, 02-2
BCA ¶ 31,989, at 158,092.
In Michael D. Fox, GSBCA 13712-RELO, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,217, the GSBCA
recognized that an agency is entitled to question claimed meal costs that are suspicious on
their face and to decline to pay those costs absent some type of “credible contemporaneous
documentation” (either receipts or other verifying documents). Id. at 145,395. The claimant
there submitted a voucher seeking payment of actual expenses of exactly the same amount
- $24.50 - for every meal eaten over a three-week period. In reviewing the agency’s denial
of recovery for any meal expenses, the board made clear that “reimbursement for subsistence
costs incurred during relocation is for actual expenses.” Id. Although recognizing that a
claimant is entitled to justify his expenses through a certified statement, rather than through
receipts, the board determined that the information available to the agency made clear that
the claimant had not identified in his certified statement the amount of the actual costs that
he had specifically incurred, entitling the agency to decline any meals reimbursement. Id.

CBCA 4774-RELO

8

Here, Mr. Addisu claimed exactly the same amount for his meals every day from
June 1 to 30, 2014, and did the same again (although at much higher amounts) from July 1
to 28, 2014. All of his alleged meals over the course of fifty-seven days ended with “.00.”
Even without Mr. Addisu’s subsequent admission that he was purchasing restaurant gift
cards as part of his actual-expense meal per diem, the manner in which he claimed meal
reimbursements made it clear – on the face of the reimbursement request itself – that the
monies being sought were not the actual expenses for meals that Mr. Addisu ate while on
TQSE.
The record here is unclear whether, and to what extent, the agency reimbursed any of
Mr. Addisu’s claimed meal expenses. Nevertheless, to the extent that the agency declined
to pay for any meals, it was within its rights to do so, and we will not order it to make any
further payments.
C.

Reimbursement of Mr. Addisu’s Lodging Expenses

The record makes clear that Mr. Addisu actually incurred lodging expenses both
during his thirty-day TQSE period and after that TQSE period ended. The agency provided
us with copies of Mr. Addisu’s hotel receipts for three periods of time (June 1 through July 2;
July 6 through 12; and July 24 to 28) that establish those lodging expenses. Although the
record here is unclear whether, and the extent to which, the agency paid Mr. Addisu for that
lodging, the agency asks us to deny any further reimbursement of lodging because of Mr.
Addisu’s alleged fraud in seeking his TQSE reimbursement. The agency asserts that, in his
TQSE reimbursement requests, Mr. Addisu falsely and fraudulently stated that he was
accompanied by his four dependents each day of his time in temporary quarters. The agency
also states that Mr. Addisu’s use of his government travel credit card to purchase restaurant
gift cards, the price of which he then attempted to recover through his TQSE meals
allowance, was fraudulent.
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) expressly addresses the effect of a traveler’s
attempt to defraud the Government in seeking reimbursement of travel costs:
What happens if I attempt to defraud the Government?
(a) You forfeit reimbursement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2514; and
(b) You may be subject under 18 U.S.C. 287 and 1001 to one, or both, of the
following:
(1) A fine of not more than $10,000, or

CBCA 4774-RELO

9

(2) Imprisonment for not more than 5 years.
41 CFR 301-52.12 (2014). On its face, the civil forfeiture statute to which the FTR cites
– known as the Forfeiture of Fraudulent Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2514 (2012) – applies only
to claims pending before the Court of Federal Claims. Nevertheless, the Comptroller General
long ago recognized that, even though the statute itself has “no direct application in the audit
of disbursing officers’ accounts,” it would not “be proper for a disbursing officer to pay or
for this Office to allow a claim thought to be fraudulent,” and it held that an officer who
suspects fraud in connection with a travel claim should deny payment based upon the
principles underlying the statute. 41 Comp. Gen. 285, 288 (1961).
In applying those principles to travel claims, the Comptroller General created what
he called the “tainted day” rule to assist in determining when, and to what extent, a traveler’s
claims should be denied when some portion of the claims was supported by fraudulent
misrepresentations. See 70 Comp. Gen. 643, 644 (1991); 61 Comp. Gen. 399, 402 (1982).
He determined that “each separate item of pay and allowances is to be viewed as a separate
claim and we do not believe that the fact that several such items may included in a single
voucher for purposes of payment affords sufficient basis for concluding that they have lost
their character as separate claims.” 41 Comp. Gen. at 288. Nevertheless, he treated
subsistence payment requests covering a single day – even if they involve different or
separate components of subsistence (that is, the lodging component, the laundry component,
or the meals component) – as indivisible: “[u]nder the tainted day rule, . . . a fraudulent
claim for reimbursement for any part of a single day’s subsistence expenses is said to taint
with fraud the entire day’s subsistence expenses.” Kenneth R. Gould, GSBCA 15527-RELO,
01-2 BCA ¶ 31,566, at 155,874 (citing Clyde L. Brown, B-206543 (Sept. 8, 1982)); see 61
Comp. Gen. at 403 (“when any day is determined to be tainted by fraud, all expenditures for
per diem on that day are excluded entirely from the calculation”); Department of the Air
Force, 57 Comp. Gen. 664, 667 (1978) (“A fraudulent statement for any subsistence item
taints the entire subsistence claim for that day.”). Accordingly, if a traveler fraudulently
misrepresented meal costs on a particular day, reimbursement of any subsistence costs that
the traveler claims for that day – whether for meals, lodging, or laundry – would be denied.
The GSBCA adopted the Comptroller General’s “tainted day” rule as its own, see
Gould, 01-2 BCA at 155,874, and we are bound by that decision of our predecessor board.
See Business Management Research Associates, Inc. v. General Services Administration,
CBCA 464, 07-1 BCA ¶ 33,486, at 165,989 (adopting decisions of predecessor boards as
precedent). In adopting that rule, the GSBCA discussed the rule’s rationale as applied to
claims for TQSE and explained why, if an employee inflates only one component of
subsistence expenses (in that case, the cost of lodging) on a particular day, the employee’s
fraud necessarily infects the entire day’s subsistence claim:

CBCA 4774-RELO

10

A fundamental issue raised with regard to fraud in a particular claim is the
degree to which that fraud may taint a claimant’s other requests for payment.
The common sense rule followed by [the General Accounting (now
Accountability) Office, which is headed by the Comptroller General] has
traditionally been that each separate item, i.e. one for which the employee can
make a claim independently of other entitlements, stands on its own and is not
tainted by the presence of fraud in another item which may appear in the same
voucher or request for payment. E.g., Department of the Air Force, 57 Comp.
Gen. 664 (1978). In the case of claims for per diem or for TQSE, the amount
sought for each day is looked upon as a separate item, but the various
components of the claim for that specific day are not considered separate items
since they share a common statutory and regulatory basis for entitlement.
Accordingly, pursuant to the tainted day rule, a fraudulent claim for lodging
will effectively taint a claim for all other per diem or subsistence benefits for
that day. See 59 Comp. Gen. 99 (1979).
Gould, 01-2 BCA at 155,874; see Secretary of the Air Force, B-172915 (Sept. 27, 1971)
(“most items of pay and allowances are computable on a daily basis”).
The tainted day rule “applies only to situations in which the agency has reasonable
suspicion of fraud supported by evidence ‘sufficient to overcome the usual presumption of
honesty and fair dealing on the part of the claimant.’” Christine Griffin, GSBCA 15818RELO, 02-2 BCA ¶ 31,925, at 157,732 (quoting Gould, 01-2 BCA at 155,875 (quoting
Department of the Air Force, 57 Comp. Gen. at 668)). To forfeit a claim under section 2514,
“the government must ‘establish by clear and convincing evidence that the contractor knew
that its submitted claims were false, and that it intended to defraud the government by
submitting those claims.’” Daewoo Engineering & Construction Co. v. United States, 557
F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States,
154 F.3d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). We apply that same standard under the “tainted day”
rule to TQSE claims. Khan, 02-2 BCA at 157,907; see Doubtful or Fraudulent Travel
Claims, B-230385 (Jan. 16, 1990) (“the burden of establishing fraud rests with the party
alleging fraud and . . . it must be proven by evidence sufficient to overcome the existing
presumption in favor of honesty and fair dealing”). Accordingly, “[t]he agency evidence
must support a reasonable suspicion that claimant knowingly submitted a false claim with
intent to deceive.” Khan, 02-2 BCA at 157,907. A claimant’s inadvertent error, negligence,
inability to provide supporting documentation, or even ineptitude does not meet this standard.
Alcatec, LLC v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 502, 517 (2011), aff’d, 471 F. App’x 899 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); Floyd S. Wiginton, GSBCA 15583-RELO, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,605, at 156,190;
Gould, 01-2 BCA at 155,875.

CBCA 4774-RELO

11

Even though Mr. Addisu denies that his travel reimbursement requests were
fraudulent, tribunals ordinarily establish fraud from circumstances rather than through
admissions. Kamen Soap Products Co. v. United States, 124 F. Supp. 608, 620 (Ct. Cl.
1954); see Rea v. Missouri, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 532, 543 (1873) (“Circumstantial evidence
[of fraud] is not only sufficient, but in most cases it is the only proof that can be adduced.”);
New York Market Gardeners’ Association v. United States, 43 Ct. Cl. 114, 137 (1908) (“it
is not necessary in order to establish fraud that . . . the party making the allegation . . . prove
it by direct and positive evidence,” and “circumstantial evidence is frequently of more force
than direct testimony”); B-230385 (“Circumstantial evidence may be used if it establishes
a clear inference of fraud and constitutes more than suspicion or conjecture.”). Here, Mr.
Addisu falsely represented on his travel reimbursement request that his four dependents were
traveling with him on each of the days for which he was authorized TQSE. That
representation was material to his ability to obtain reimbursement beyond the then-applicable
$129 maximum per diem that he would have been authorized were he traveling alone. In
addition, Mr. Addisu acknowledged to the agency investigator that he was purchasing
restaurant gift cards for later use by his family and using those gift cards as a basis for his
meal reimbursement requests, while the family was residing in its own home in Bloomington
rather than in temporary quarters. Although the agency has not identified for us the particular
days during his authorized TQSE on which Mr. Addisu purchased gift cards, the record is
clear that his meal reimbursement requests encompassed the gift card purchases and that the
gift card purchases were essentially spread across the totality of his reimbursement requests.
Despite denying the allegations of fraud, Mr. Addisu has presented no rational
explanation as to how he legitimately could have believed that he could misrepresent his
dependents’ travel status or seek reimbursement for gift cards under the guise that they were
for legitimate TQSE meals. “Claims against the United States must be based on true facts
and it is incumbent upon the claimant to furnish evidence satisfactorily establishing the clear
liability of the United States to pay the claim.” Staff Sergeant Edward T. Sellers, Ret.,
B-166533 (Apr. 16, 1969). In these circumstances, the agency has established that each day
of Mr. Addisu’s subsistence reimbursement requests was tainted. Under the “tainted day”
rule, Mr. Addisu’s fraudulent request for reimbursement of his meals precludes recovery of
his lodging costs. Accordingly, to the extent that the agency has not paid for portions of Mr.
Addisu’s lodging, it properly declined to do so.

CBCA 4774-RELO

12
Decision

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Mr. Addisu’s claim for TQSE.

______________________________
HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.
Board Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Acbca%3A9c143d273e7e66e1. Public record. Not legal advice.