__________________________ May 16, 1997 __________________________ GSBCA 13872-TRAV In the Matter of WILLIAM O'CALLAGHAN William O'Callaghan, Fredericksburg, VA, Claimant. Jan Miller, Office of the General Counsel, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, appearing for United States Agency for International Development. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Mr. William O'Callaghan, seeks restitution for losses he incurred while on temporary duty (TDY) travel for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Kiev, Ukraine. The losses resulted from a mugging in which Mr. O'Callaghan sustained personal injuries and was robbed of considerable cash and personal property. The claim was denied because Mr. O'Callaghan was returning to his hotel from a reception when the assault occurred. This was not deemed by the agency to be within the official duties of claimant while on TDY. USAID contends that the Board lacks authority to entertain the claim because it is properly made under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.  3721, and not under the settlement of claims function set forth in 31 U.S.C.  3702. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that we lack authority to review the claim and, accordingly, dismiss it. Background In March 1996, Mr. O'Callaghan traveled on TDY to Ukraine for the purpose of performing an assessment of a USAID-funded project. The trip was to require travel not only to Kiev, but to other areas in Ukraine and possibly to the Republic of Moldova. According to Mr. O'Callaghan, travelers to this area of the world must, of necessity, carry substantial amounts of cash to cover meals, lodging, transportation, and incidental expenses because travelers checks are generally not accepted and only a few hotels in Kiev will honor credit cards. Given these circumstances, prior to leaving the United States, Mr. O'Callaghan obtained a travel advance of $3,000 in cash to cover his expenses on the trip. Upon arrival in Kiev, Mr. O'Callaghan was advised that it would not be prudent to leave cash or valuables in his hotel room or in the hotel safe because of the likelihood of theft. He was also advised by USAID/Kiev personnel that violent crime was rare, but that pickpockets were numerous. Accordingly, claimant carried his cash and valuables on his person when leaving the room. In particular, he placed about $200 in pockets and hid the remaining cash in his socks in the hope of protecting the bulk of his cash from pickpockets. On March 15, the USAID office held a going-away party for the outgoing Regional Contracts Officer, which was combined with a birthday party for another employee. The party was held at an office only a short walk from claimant's hotel. Although the event was a party, claimant and other attendees worked part of the time, placing a telephone call to USAID in Washington and discussing business-related issues with colleagues at the party. At approximately 10:00 p.m., claimant left the party to walk back to his hotel. He did not attempt to find a taxi, since taxis are not readily available in Kiev, but determined to walk, since the distance was quite short. He took the usual route, which he had learned from other USAID employees. Somewhere on that route, Mr. O'Callaghan was assaulted and robbed of his cash and personal belongings. He was dragged away and left unconscious in the snow. He woke up in a Ukrainian hospital, nine hours after the assault. He left the hospital and sought the assistance of his fellow USAID employees. Upon returning to the United States, Mr. O'Callaghan was advised to pursue a claim under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, which he did. The agency adjudicated the claim and determined that it should be denied because to recover: the loss or damage would have had to have occurred while you were executing the official duties for which you were sent TDY and/or returning to your hotel upon completion of those duties. The mere fact that you made some official calls while attending the party does not, in and of itself, obviate the fact that the loss occurred while you were returning to your hotel around 10:00 p.m., alone, in a poorly lit area, with approximately $3,000.00 on your person after attending a party and not upon completion of your TDY duties. This decision was concurred in by the adjudicator's supervisor. Mr. O'Callaghan continues to disagree with his agency's conclusion that the mugging was not incident to service, contending that the nature of his job requires him to attend such functions to network, learn about programs, and develop good working relationships with the field offices. He has requested that his claim be reviewed by the Board. Mr. O'Callaghan was reimbursed $1000 under his homeowner's insurance policy and seeks to recover only the amount of the travel advance not covered by insurance. Discussion USAID contends that this claim should be dismissed because the sole remedy available to Mr. O'Callaghan is the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, which is the exclusive authority under which employees may pursue a claim for loss of personal property. Mr. O'Callaghan has already submitted his claim under that Act and received a final and conclusive ruling. The Board's authority to review claims associated with TDY is limited to claims for expenses related to travel on behalf of the Government. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has held that a travel advance is considered to be a personal loan for which the employee is responsible. The Government is not obligated to relieve the employee from liability to repay stolen amounts. Susan Gouge, B-204387 (Feb. 24, 1982); Joel S. Posner, B-197927 (Sept. 12, 1980). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) states that reimbursable travel expenses are confined to those expenses essential to the transaction of official business. 41 CFR 301- 1.3(b) (1996). The loss of personal property is not one of the expenses enumerated as reimbursable in the FTR. 41 CFR 301-7, 301- 9 (1996). Although Mr. O'Callaghan sustained a loss of personal property while on TDY, this loss cannot properly be characterized as a claim for expenses incurred in the conduct of official business on TDY. Thus, the Board's authority under 31 U.S.C.  3702 is not applicable to this claim. The Board has previously recognized that it has no authority to review adjudications under the Military and Civilian Employees' Claims Act. See Gretchen Ridgeway, GSBCA 14074-RELO (April 3, 1997); Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13859-RELO (Feb. 19, 1997). Accordingly, we must dismiss this claim. __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge