In the Matter of HERBERT H. GALLIART

April 23, 2013

CBCA 3242-TRAV

In the Matter of HERBERT H. GALLIART

Herbert H. Galliart, Anthony, NM, Claimant.

Phillip D. Hendrick, Acting Chief, Travel Section, National Finance Center, Customs

and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for

Department of Homeland Security.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

Customs and Border Protection, a bureau of the Department of Homeland Security,

authorized Herbert H. Galliart to attend a training program in Laguna Beach, California, in

December 2012. Mr. Galliart was stationed in El Paso, Texas, at the time, and the agency’s

travel orders directed him to travel to Laguna Beach by air and rent a car once there.

Mr. Galliart did not follow these orders; instead, he traveled by a privately-owned vehicle

(POV).

The agency and the employee agree that Mr. Galliart should be reimbursed for the

expenses of his trip at the lesser of his actual expenses or the constructive cost of travel

contemplated in the orders. The parties disagree, however, on two of the actual expenses

claimed by the employee – the mileage rate at which he should be reimbursed for driving and

the distance for which reimbursement is appropriate. The resolution of these issues is

important because no matter which party is correct on the issues, the actual expenses are less

than the constructive cost of travel contemplated in the orders.

CBCA 3242-TRAV

2

Mileage rate

Mr. Galliart asked to be reimbursed at the rate prescribed for driving a POV; the

agency believes that he should be reimbursed instead at the rate for driving a Governmentowned vehicle. The provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) which bear on this

matter are 41 CFR 301-10.309 and -10.310 (2012). They read as follows:

§ 301-10.309 What will I be reimbursed if I am authorized to use common

carrier transportation and I use a POV instead?

You will be reimbursed on a mileage basis, plus per diem, not to exceed

the total constructive cost of the authorized method of common carrier

transportation plus per diem. Your agency must determine the constructive

cost of transportation and per diem by common carrier under the rules in

§ 301-10.310.

§ 301-10.310 What will I be reimbursed if I am authorized to use a

Government owned automobile [GOA] and I use a privately owned

automobile [POA] instead?

You will be reimbursed based on a constructive mileage rate limited to

the cost that would be incurred for use of a Government automobile. This rate

will be published in an FTR bulletin available at http://www.gsa.gov/ftr. If

your agency determines the cost of providing a GOA would be higher because

of unusual circumstances, it may allow reimbursement not to exceed the

mileage rate for a POA. In addition, you may be reimbursed other allowable

expenses as provided in § 301-10.304 [such as fees for parking and using toll

roads].

The agency had in January 2012 informed employees in certain categories, one of

which included Mr. Galliart, regarding its policy for travel by car:

Given the budget situation and to ensure that all training requirements are met,

TDY [temporary duty] costs must remain at the lowest levels possible. With

that in mind, the most cost-effective way to travel to most locations is by air.

If for some reason you choose not to travel by air you will be authorized the

use of a Government vehicle. We have several available at all times. If you

choose not to use a Government vehicle, you may use your Privately Owned

Vehicle at the reduced reimbursement rate of $.19/mile.

CBCA 3242-TRAV

3

The agency tells us, through the declaration of a travel manager in its El Paso office, that

thirty-two government vehicles were available for use by employees at the time Mr. Galliart

traveled to Laguna Beach.

According to the agency, because its policy mandated use of a government vehicle by

employees who are directed to travel by air but choose to drive instead, and a government

vehicle was available for Mr. Galliart’s trip, he must be reimbursed at the mileage rate for

government vehicles. (The policy specifies a rate of nineteen cents per mile, which was the

rate when the policy was issued. The parties understand that the rate was twenty-three cents

per mile at the time Mr. Galliart traveled to Laguna Beach.)

Mr. Galliart notes that the FTR permits an agency to reimburse an employee who

drives a POV at the higher POV rate (55.5 cents per mile at the time he traveled), whenever

the agency determines that the cost of providing a government vehicle would be more

expensive than allowing an employee to drive a POV. He maintains that for two reasons, the

agency should have made such a determination in his situation. First, he could travel more

quickly in a POV, since his wife could split the driving with him, obviating the need for rest

stops. Speedy travel was important, he urges, because his training in Laguna Beach involved

flying aircraft, and agency policy restricts pilots from flying without adequate rest between

duty hours.1 Second, Mr. Galliart contends, the government vehicles available to him were

police cars which used fuel inefficiently; his driving a standard passenger car saved fuel (and

the cost of fuel) and limited pollution, outcomes which benefited the Government.

The arguments made by Mr. Galliart are inventive, and perhaps they could have been

considered by the agency when it made its policy regarding the use of vehicles in lieu of air

travel and when it applied that policy to his situation. Nevertheless, the agency established

a clear policy at variance with those arguments, informed him of that policy well in advance

of his trip, and did not act irrationally in determining that his use of his own vehicle would

have been more expensive for the Government than his use of a government vehicle.

Further, the points made by the employee are not entirely convincing. Agencies cannot be

expected to make travel policy and rulings based on assumptions that non-government

personnel (such as a spouse) will accompany an employee who is traveling on official

1

Mr. Galliart also contends that if he had used a government vehicle, his time

of travel would have been extended because he would have had to begin his day by

backtracking from his home to an agency facility, going through processing to be issued a

vehicle, and then returning past his home on the way to Laguna Beach. This argument

ignores the simple fact that he could have picked up a government vehicle on the evening

before the trip, eliminating any need for backtracking on the day of travel.

CBCA 3242-TRAV

4

business. And the list of vehicles provided by the agency includes some which are passenger

cars and some whose fuel efficiency cannot be compared with the efficiency of other vehicles

because it is not rated on the charts provided by Mr. Galliart. We conclude that the agency

properly calculated the actual costs of this employee’s travel by using the mileage rate

specified for use of government vehicles. See David L. Mount, CBCA 1990-TRAV, 10-2

BCA ¶ 34,503.

Distance traveled

Over what number of miles should this rate be applied? Mr. Galliart says that the

odometer on his vehicle shows that he drove 1785 miles on this trip. The agency says that

according to Mapquest.com, the distance between El Paso and Laguna Beach is 788 miles;

multiplying this number by two and adding the thirty miles the employee says he drove to and

from the training site yields a total of 1606 miles for the trip.

What accounts for the 179-mile difference? In filing his case with the Board,

Mr. Galliart contended that he used a global positioning system (GPS) unit in his vehicle, and

that such units “continuously receive road condition and traffic information, then determine

suitable alternate routes around traffic jams and other delays. This can result in a variation

in the mileage indicated by the internet and the actual mileage recorded on the odometer.”

In responding to agency comments, he asserts that travel from El Paso to Laguna Beach on

Interstate Highway 10, through Los Angeles, is much faster than travel to that city on

Interstate Highways 5 and 8, through San Diego (the route selected by Mapquest.com).

According to the FTR, distance traveled by a POV between origin and destination is

measured “[a]s shown in paper or electronic standard highway mileage guides, or the actual

miles driven as determined from odometer readings.” 41 CFR 301-10.302. Thus, both the

method used by the agency and the method used by the employee are permissible. We would

expect, however, that if an employee had driven by a direct route, the difference between the

two methods would be minimal. Here, it is not. Mr. Galliart’s explanation of the difference

is not persuasive. While a GPS unit may assist a driver in avoiding delays, he does not allege

that he used his unit for that purpose. And the difference in miles between the two routes

postulated for travel from El Paso to Laguna Beach is a mere ten miles (798 versus 788), so

driving on one rather than the other should not make a difference of 179 miles.

We consequently find convincing the agency’s hypothesis that Mr. Galliart drove on

a circuitous route for his own personal convenience. The FTR provides that if an employee

travels by such a route, his “reimbursement will be limited to the cost of travel by a direct

route . . . . [The employee] will be responsible for any additional costs.” 41 CFR 301-10.8.

CBCA 3242-TRAV

5

Decision

The agency should pay Mr. Galliart the actual expenses of his trip to Laguna Beach,

including $369.38 for 1606 miles driven at the twenty-three-cents-per-mile rate specified for

the use of a Government-owned vehicle.

_________________________

STEPHEN M. DANIELS

Board Judge