_____________________ April 10, 1997 _____________________ GSBCA 13647-RELO In the Matter of EDUARDO SOTO Eduardo Soto, Hixson, TN, Claimant. J. Patrick O Toole, Director, Division of Travel Management, Office of Finance, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, appearing for Social Security Administration. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. In July 1994, Eduardo Soto, an administrative law judge for the Social Security Administration (SSA), transferred from Miami, Florida to Chattanooga, Tennessee. In connection with the transfer, on June 28, 1994, Judge Soto and his wife went to Chattanooga to look for a new residence. Judge and Mrs. Soto returned to Miami on the morning of July 2, 1994. On the morning of July 20, 1994, Judge Soto, his wife, and two children left Miami for Chattanooga. They stopped in Gainesville, Florida for the evening and continued on to Chattanooga the next day. When Judge Soto submitted his travel vouchers to the SSA, he claimed reimbursement for the following telephone calls: June 28 Miami from Chattanooga 9:07 pm Miami from Chattanooga 9:17 pm Miami from Chattanooga 10:31 pm June 29 Miami from Chattanooga 10:34 am Gainesville, FL from Hendersonville, NC 7:17 pm Miami from Hendersonville 7:27 pm Chattanooga from Miami 8:12 pm Miami from Chattanooga 10:03 pm Chattanooga from Miami 10:53 pm June 30 Hendersonville from Chattanooga 11:14 am Gainesville from Hendersonville 5:08 pm Miami from Chattanooga 7:04 pm Miami from Chattanooga 9:40 pm July 1 Miami from Chattanooga 5:33 pm Miami from Chattanooga 7:19 pm Miami from Chattanooga 7:39 pm July 20 Chattanooga from Miami 9:42 am Miami from Lake Lure, NC 12:40 pm Miami from Gainesville 11:25 pm July 21 Chattanooga from Gainesville 9:06 am Chattanooga from Gainesville 9:20 am Chattanooga from Gainesville 9:29 am Chattanooga from Gainesville 9:33 am Miami from Chattanooga 7:50 pm Miami from Chattanooga 8:03 pm Miami from Chattanooga 8:20 pm The SSA denied Judge Soto's claim for the cost of these telephone calls. Judge Soto disagreed with the SSA's decision and asked the SSA to send the claim to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for review. We asked Judge Soto to tell us who initiated each call, who participated in each call, and what was discussed during each call. Judge Soto states that the calls made on June 28 through July 1 "were likely made to family members," but he does not say who initiated the calls or what was discussed. For three of the calls made on July 20 and 21, Judge Soto states that he initiated the calls, but he does not remember whom he called. For five of the calls made on July 20 and 21, Judge Soto states that he initiated the calls and that the calls were to "Miami-area numbers, likely to family members." Judge Soto states that he initiated the remaining two calls on July 20 and 21, that the calls were to his new office, and that he spoke with "either the Chief Judge or the office manager concerning work-related matters." These two calls were made at 9:42 am on July 20 and 9:06 am on July 21. Discussion Under regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration, an agency shall pay the travel expenses of a Government employee who is transferred from one official station to another for permanent duty. In addition, an agency shall pay for miscellaneous expenses that the employee incurs in the course of being relocated. 5 U.S.C.  5724(a)(1), 5724a(b) (1994); Executive Order 11609 (July 22, 1971). Travel Expenses SSA says that we should look only to regulations governing employees who are relocating, and not to regulations concerning employees who are traveling on official business, when we decide this claim. We disagree. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which implements the statutory sections cited above, states that travel expenses of employees who are relocated will be allowed in accordance with chapter 301 of the FTR, which governs employees who are traveling on official business. 41 CFR 302-2.1 (1994). The applicable regulation provides, "Travel expenses which will be reimbursed are confined to those expenses essential to the transaction of official business." 41 CFR 301-1.3(b). Among all of the calls that Judge Soto made, only the two that he made to his new office on July 20 and 21 appear to have been for the transaction of official business. Judge Soto states that the calls were work-related and SSA does not take issue with his statement. SSA should reimburse Judge Soto for the two calls he made to his new office. Judge Soto says that 41 CFR 201-21.601(d) (1994) applies to his claim and that this regulation, which was part of the Federal Information Resources Management Regulation (FIRMR), required SSA to reimburse him for the remainder of his telephone calls. When Judge Soto transferred to Chattanooga, the FTR provided that agencies could reimburse employees for telephone calls made using commercial telephone systems in accordance with agency regulations issued pursuant to the FIRMR. FIRMR Bulletin C-13 authorized agencies to determine that one brief telephone call made by a traveling employee to his or her residence each day constituted official business. Judge Soto did not establish that the telephone calls for which he claims reimbursement were made by him or were made to his residence, and so 41 CFR 201-21.601(d) did not require SSA to reimburse Judge Soto for these calls. Miscellaneous Expenses No provision in the FTR permits an agency to reimburse an employee for personal telephone calls. The GAO allowed employees to recover the expense of telephone calls that might otherwise have been considered personal as part of the amount that employees were paid for miscellaneous expenses, if the calls were related to an item of allowable expense. Timothy R. Glass, 67 Comp. Gen. 174 (1988); Genesh C. Bhuyan, B-202906 (Sept. 15, 1982); Roy M. Johnson, B-190235 (Feb. 15, 1978); Richard B. Dawson, B-189140 (Nov. 23, 1977); Walter Alt, B-185160 (Jan. 2, 1976). We do not need to decide whether to adopt GAO's rationale because, even if we were to agree with GAO, Judge Soto could not be reimbursed for his calls because he did not establish that the calls were related to an item of allowable expense. _______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge