In the Matter of CLIFTON F.

November 2, 2020

CBCA 6896-TRAV

In the Matter of CLIFTON F.

Clifton F., Claimant.

Mark D. Dellinger, Director, Travel Management and Policy Division, Office of

Logistics Operations, Department of State, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of

State.

SHERIDAN, Board Judge.

Claimant incurred extra fees when his cost-constructed restricted tickets had to be

changed due to an order returning him to post. Claimant seeks repayment of those extra fees.

According to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), which provides guidance for the payment

of travel expenses for Department of State (DoS) employees, when an employee chooses to

cost construct his or her travel, there can be no additional cost to DoS regardless of the

circumstances surrounding changes to the employee’s itinerary.

Background

Claimant was assigned as a DoS special agent at the U.S. Mission to Iraq in Baghdad.

He scheduled a rest and recuperation (R&R) trip and, in accordance with DoS policy, was

authorized round-trip unrestricted air travel. Instead, claimant requested round-trip restricted

tickets for a cost constructed route for the amount of $3251.42, plus transaction fees of $78.

While he was on R&R, Post Baghdad was placed on ordered departure on May 14,

2019. Claimant was sent an email on May 24, 2019, notifying him that the Under Secretary

for Management had approved his return to post and instructing him to coordinate with his

supervisor to determine his return date. When claimant contacted the DoS to change his

CBCA 6896-TRAV

2

R&R ticket to return to Baghdad, he was reminded that he had originally purchased a cost

constructed ticket for his R&R travel from Baghdad to London, United Kingdom, to

Baghdad.

On May 27, 2019, at the request of claimant, his cost constructed return tickets were

exchanged and reissued for his new requested return date of May 28, 2019. The travel

agency advised that when changing his return date they would have to charge him $371.37

in airline-imposed reservation change fees, a second $39 travel agency cost construct fee to

exchange his original ticket, and an additional 3% credit card charge fee. This totaled $423.

Claimant acknowledged and approved the charge. Claimant requested reimbursement of

$423 for the costs he incurred to have his cost constructed R&R airline tickets changed and

reissued.

On August 4, 2020, the DoS’s Exceptions Committee unanimously denied the claim

in accordance with 14 FAM 515, 561, 564.l(b), and 585.2-1.

Discussion

Claimant’s travel authorization states the following:

Your trip is considered cost constructed against the authorized route of

BGW-LHR-BGW. The flexibility to cost construct does come with the

understanding that you will be personally responsible for ANY and ALL

additional costs and/or penalties in connection with your travel, regardless of

the reason expenses are incurred even when it is the fault of the government.

Per 14 FAM 585.2-1, Personal Financial Responsibility, “when a traveler deviates

from an authorized, usually traveled route, for any reason, the traveler must bear the extra

expense for the portion of the journey that is by an indirect route.” For this reason, ISU

requires that all travelers check the following cost construct certifying statement on travel

requests before the TMC will issue the traveler’s R&R ticket. Also, per 14 FAM 585.2-1,

“when a traveler deviates from an authorized, usually traveled route, for any reason, the

traveler must bear the extra expense for the portion of the journey that is by an indirect

route.”

ISU requires that all travelers check the cost construct certifying statement on travel

requests before the TMC will issue the traveler’s R&R ticket. The cost construct certifying

statement that claimant acknowledged provides:

CBCA 6896-TRAV

I acknowledge that if I cost construct my travel, once I finalize the purchase

of my ticket, I will be responsible for all costs associated with changing my

itinerary, regardless of whether the change is for official or personal reasons.

These costs include, but are not limited to, penalties, fees, or price differences

in ticket.

Claimant checked the box below the statement to acknowledge the statement.

Further, 14 FAM 564.1, Unrestricted Fare Policy, states:

a. In general and when possible, the Department utilizes the lowest-cost

unrestricted fares available for travel between authorized origin and

destination, respecting the terms of the General Services Administration

(GSA) city-pair program, for all official travel.

b. An individual may request the purchase of a restricted or penalty fare

for official travel based on personal convenience (e.g., taking an indirect

route for personal reasons or wishing to travel in a class of service other than

the one authorized), but the individual is responsible for any and all

additional costs and/or penalties incurred in connection with such fares.

See 14 FAM 561 for an employee’s responsibility to exercise due care.

(Emphasis added.)

Finally, 14 FAM 561.2, Exercising Care in Incurring Expenses, warns:

An employee traveling on official business is expected to exercise the same

care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on

personal business and expending personal funds. Excess costs, circuitous

routes, delays, or luxury accommodations and services unnecessary or

unjustified in the performance of official business are not acceptable under this

standard. Employees will be responsible for excess costs and any

additional expenses incurred for personal preference or convenience.

(Emphasis added.)

A staff notice to all U.S. Mission to Iraq employees states:

Travelers are now able to cost construct into any class of fare for personal

convenience . . . . However, this flexibility does come with the

3

CBCA 6896-TRAV

4

understanding that you will be responsible for any and all additional costs

and/or penalties incurred in connection with such fares. This applies even

if the change is the fault of the USG [United States Government] (such as an

unexpected mission essential support, cancellation of training, etc.) because

if the travel had been conducted using an unrestricted fare, there would

have been no penalties.

(Emphasis added.)

Decision

As stated above, the Department issues unrestricted, fully refundable tickets for

official travel. However, when cost constructing his R&R, claimant requested restricted

tickets acknowledging and accepting the risk he was taking. Had claimant traveled as

directed and not chosen to cost construct, there would have been no additional cost to him

or DoS regardless of the circumstances surrounding changes to his itinerary.

The Board concludes that the added ticket cost, which is due to claimant’s decision

to cost construct his travel, is solely his financial responsibility. While claimant incurred

extra costs as a result of an unplanned ordered departure from post, DoS is not responsible

for increased costs for official travel that is cost constructed for the personal convenience of

the traveler.

Patricia J. Sheridan

PATRICIA J. SHERIDAN

Board Judge