Social Feeds

Be sure to Like and Follow FEDmanager on Facebook and on Twitter for exclusive content and news stories affecting the federal community and tips on maximizing your federal career and advancing in the federal workforce.

Subscribe!

Subscribe to our newsletter. It's FREE. Read our privacy policy

Army Employee Entitled to TDY Expenses Where Agency Incorrectly Designated Her PDS

Written by FEDmanager on . Posted in Case Law Update

A U.S. Army civilian employee was entitled to temporary duty (TDY) expenses, even though she was performing work at her designated permanent duty station (PDS), because her PDS was assigned for "administrative convenience only," the U.S. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) ruled recently.

In this case, the claimant initially arrived at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as a contractor employee. She was a student in the Department of Army's (DOA) Human Terrain System (HTS) program. As a student, the contractor paid living and travel expenses. Upon completing her training, the claimant was immediately sent to the Combat Readiness Center and deployed to Afghanistan. During the fifteenth month of her twenty-two month deployment, HTS hired the claimant as a DOA civilian employee. It was at this point, while the claimant was still in Afghanistan, that the DOA designated Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as her permanent duty station (PDS). After redeploying to Afghanistan, the claimant returned to her home of record in Texas to expend accumulated leave and compensatory time before her return to Afghanistan.

While on leave, HTS requested that the claimant report to Fort Leavenworth for approximately two weeks to work on updating program curricula. HTS officials informed her that she would be entitled to TDY expenses during this time. After completing her assignment, the DOA denied her request for TDY expenses because the Army had designated Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as her PDS. This designation was made despite the fact that the claimant did not live or routinely work at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. In fact, she did not even reside in the vicinity of Fort Leavenworth. Her home is in Texas. On average, the CBCA stated, the claimant spends less than four weeks a year at Fort Leavenworth. Under the HTS program, the claimant was on a perpetual deployment cycle. When she was hired, it was for the sole purpose of deploying to Afghanistan. Except for periods of leave and compensatory time, it was HTS's expectation that the claimant either would be deployed to Afghanistan or separated from the HTS program. The DOA has indicated that HTS designated Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, as her PDS for administrative convenience only.

In its decision, the CBCA explained that the DOA denied the claimant's TDY claim on the grounds that she was performing work at her PDS when she worked on updating the curricula at Fort Leavenworth. In denying the claimant's TDY expenses, the DOA argued that it has wide discretion in determining just where an employee's PDS is located, and that one cannot get TDY expenses at one's PDS.

The CBCA, however, concluded that the DOA's reasoning lacks merit. The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which apply to civilian employees of the Department of Defense, state: "An employee's PDS is where an employee spends, and is expected to spend, the most time." Further, the CBCA explained, prior case law says that whether a duty station is temporary or permanent is a question of fact and is determined by where an employee expects and is expected to spend the greater part of his time. The "paper trail" created by the agency and the employee was less important than the facts establishing where the employee was expected to spend the greater part of his time performing his duties.

Under the facts presented in this case, the CBCA concluded that Fort Leavenworth is not the claimant's PDS. Prior to the assignment at issue, the claimant spent little or no time at Fort Leavenworth as a DOA employee, and was not expected to spend any significant time there. Accordingly, the CBCA concluded that the claimant's assignment to Fort Leavenworth to update curricula was a temporary assignment and that she thus is entitled to TDY travel expenses.

The case is In the Matter of Audrey Roberts, U.S. Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, CBCA 2230-TRAV, June 21, 2011.

YGL Profiles

An Interview with Melanie Keller, Assoc. Director for Management, Center for Drug Evaluation & Research (CDER)

Melanie Keller is the Associate Director for Management at the Center for Drug Evaluation & Research (CDER), the largest Center at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She serves as the Center’s Executive Officer and oversees all administrative operations. Ms. Keller is responsible for budget formulation, user fee collection, and execution of a $1 billion annual budget. She also leads and directs the Center’s human capital management of more than 4,500 employees, and is currently leading recruitment strategies for 795 vacancies within the Center. 

Read more...

From the Hill

Senators Explore Oversight of Small Agencies, Drafting New IG Bill

Senators last week discussed oversight of small agencies, commissions, and boards with a hearing before the Senate’s Financial and Contracting Oversight subcommittee.

Challenges of small agency oversight was discussed at the hearing, as were potential legislative actions to improve the oversight of such organizations.  

Chairwoman of the subcommittee, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said at the hearing that there are at least 40 small agencies with over $1 billion in budgetary authority with “virtually no oversight.”

Read more...

Case Law Update

MSPB Grants Veteran’s Request for Corrective Action after DoD Rejected Job Application

A GS-12 Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”) employee applied for a GS-13 position. The vacancy announcement, issued by DCMA, listed the DCMA and Department of Defense (“DoD”) employees that could apply for the position, and specified that applicants “MUST submit documents verifying your eligibility with your application package. These documents may include, but are not limited to: for current employment verification, a non-award [Standard Form (SF)]-50 or DD3434…” The DCMA employee’s application contained a resume, an SF-52, education transcripts, and a Form DD 214, but was rejected due to the employee’s failure to include an SF-50. An MSPB administrative judge found that the agency improperly rejected the employee’s application, because the SF-52 he included contained the same employment verification documentation. However, the administrative judge ultimately denied the employee’s request for corrective action because of a finding that the agency did not accept applications from individuals outside its own workforce under merit promotion procedures, and therefore had not violated statute by denying the employee, who was a veteran under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f)(1), the opportunity to compete. On April 1, 2014, the MSPB reversed the initial decision in part, and granted the employee’s request for corrective action.

Read more...

GEICO's Good Stuff

Tell Us: Why Do You Heart Public Service

GEICO’s Good Stuff is a column series highlighting great stuff happening in the federal community.

The Public Employees Roundtable (PER) is collecting testimonials from government employees and members of the public in support of an I “Heart” Public Service whiteboard photo campaign. Images will be posted on the PER on Facebook and Instagram pages.

The group behind Public Service Recognition Week (PSRW), which takes place this year from May 4-10, launched the whiteboard campaign in support of this year’s theme: Proud to Serve.

Government employees and members of the public are invited to fill out their own whiteboard and share why they love public service and tag their photos with #PSRW and #Proud2ServeUSA.

Read more...