U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

An Investigation of Travel Reimbursements 

in Connection with the INS’s Operation 

Safeguard 

 

 

 December 2002 

 Office of the Inspector General
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

I. Introduction 

In 1999, Operation “Safeguard 99” (hereinafter referred to as 

Operation Safeguard) was established in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector 

as part of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) National 

Strategy to secure control of the southwest border. This Tucson Sector 

initiative was first launched in 1994, on a much smaller basis, as 

Operation “Safeguard 1994.” Similar operations to control illegal 

crossings in other Border Patrol sectors, such as in the El Paso and San 

Diego sectors, eventually shifted the flow of illegal crossing into the 

Tucson Sector’s area of operations. Therefore, as part of Operation 

Safeguard 99, many Border Patrol resources were redirected in 1999 to 

support the Tucson Sector’s prevention and interdiction efforts. 

As a result, since 1999 the INS has detailed thousands of agents 

and other personnel to the Tucson Sector, and to Douglas, Arizona in 

particular, to participate in the operation. The number of Border Patrol 

agents (BPA) who were detailed to the Tucson Sector varied from month 

to month, but averaged approximately 100 per month. 

The rapid increase of BPAs in southern Arizona presented a 

significant stimulus to that economy, and local lodging providers 

welcomed the increased business. Despite the large number of Border 

Patrol agents requiring lodging on a regular basis, however, the INS did 

not seek to negotiate, as an agency, a competitive lodging rate with area 

hotels and apartment complexes. Rather, the detailed BPAs were left on 

their own to secure whatever lodging arrangements they could find. 

 In an effort to obtain and ultimately retain the agents’ business, 

many local lodging providers offered special incentives for the agents to 

rent lodging from them. These incentives included food vouchers, credits 

at restaurants, complimentary meals, gym memberships, and in some 

cases cash rebates. Until after the complaints that were the basis for 

this investigation arose, however, INS management did not provide policy 

or ethical guidance to its employees concerning the incentives that the 

lodging providers offered. In our investigations, we also found that in 

some cases supervisory Border Patrol agents rented rooms in their 

homes to other agents or purchased rental properties to rent to agents. 

Two Border Patrol agents who were permanently assigned to the 

Douglas Border Patrol Station reported allegations of misconduct 

regarding these lodging benefits to United States Congressman Jim 

Kolbe, whose district covers the Douglas area. The allegations concerned 

four areas: 1) that some detailed Border Patrol agents had committed 

1
travel voucher fraud in connection with the lodging benefits; 2) that 

Supervisory Border Patrol Agents had rented properties to subordinate 

agents; 3) that an INS Office of Internal Audit (OIA) agent, who the INS 

had assigned to investigate these allegations, had refused to adequately 

pursue the matter; 4) and that Border Patrol managers in the Tucson 

Sector retaliated against the complainants for reporting the allegations. 

In September 2001, Congressman Kolbe requested that the 

Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigate 

the complainants’ allegations and the circumstances surrounding the 

detailing of agents in support of Operation Safeguard. He further asked 

that the OIG examine the types and legality of the incentives that the 

lodging providers offered to those agents. 

In response to these complaints, the OIG opened this investigation. 

This report summarizes our findings. 

II. The Scope of the OIG Investigation 

To investigate these allegations, we initially obtained a listing from 

the INS Western Region identifying all employees who were detailed to 

Operation Safeguard. We then requested that INS locate and provide 

copies of all available travel vouchers submitted by those employees who 

were detailed to the Tucson Sector during Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001.1

(Our request is included as Exhibit 1.) Thereafter, we obtained and 

audited 3045 travel vouchers from the INS Finance Center in Dallas, 

Texas for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 covering those individuals who 

were detailed to all Tucson Sector Border Patrol stations in support of 

Operation Safeguard.2 

We analyzed and inputted the information contained in these 3045 

vouchers into an OIG database. From these vouchers, we determined 

that 1,436 INS employees were detailed to the Tucson Sector in support 

of Operation Safeguard during Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. In addition, 

we identified 250 lodging providers where detailed INS employees stayed 

during this period. 

Through OIG subpoenas, we obtained lodging receipts and rental 

contract records from the largest lodging providers. We also reviewed 

records maintained at the Cochise County Tax Assessor and Recorder’s 

 1

 Our review covered vouchers during the period from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2001. Because 

we received the allegations in 2001, we decided to focus our review on the two-year period prior to

Congressman Kolbe’s request to the OIG. 2 We believe that the INS’s Tucson Sector cooperated fully with our review. It provided access to records 

and facilitated our interviews of key witnesses. Similarly, the San Diego Sector, from where the bulk of the 

agents had been detailed, also greatly assisted us in this investigation.

2
Offices to ascertain the ownership of rental properties. In addition, we 

reviewed INS documents relating to Operation Safeguard as well as 

receipts lodging providers maintained in the course of their rental 

businesses. 

We conducted many interviews in connection with this 

investigation. In total, the OIG interviewed more than 100 BPAs, 

including agents who were detailed to the Tucson Sector, many of their 

supervisors, and Border Patrol management officials. The OIG also 

interviewed the INS’s Office of Internal Audit (OIA) agent who conducted 

the INS’s original investigation into the allegations, as well as his 

supervisors. 

In addition, we interviewed 14 lodging providers who provided 

much of the lodging to the detailed Border Patrol agents in the Douglas 

and Sierra Vista, Arizona areas.3 Due to the large number of lodging 

providers, we submitted a questionnaire to 70 providers, representing a 

sample of the remaining lodging providers who we did not interview. In 

addition, the OIG identified and interviewed seven INS employees or 

spouses of INS employees who provided lodging for detailed agents. 

We presented the results of our investigation, including the 

potential violations of law, to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tucson and to 

the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal 

Division for prosecutive decisions. In most cases, they declined criminal 

prosecution. However, the OIG continues to work with the Tucson U.S. 

Attorney’s Office and the Internal Revenue Service on several allegations 

that could lead to prosecution of INS employees for fraud, false 

statements, or tax evasion violations. 

 

The OIG’s Office of General Counsel (OGC), in consultation with 

INS’s Ethics Officer and the General Service Administration, prepared a 

legal opinion regarding acceptance of the various incentives that the 

lodging providers offered to renters. That memorandum is included as 

Exhibit 2. 

During the two-year period we reviewed, it appeared that 114 

travel voucher claims were erroneously overpaid, by a total of 

approximately $16,000. Our review also revealed that there appeared to 

be little oversight of the voucher approval process or questions raised 

concerning the amounts claimed. We referred this issue to INS OIA for 

consideration of an internal audit of that area. We also referred other 

BPAs’ travel vouchers that were identified as indicating possible fraud to 

INS OIA for follow-up and any corrective action.

 3

 Sierra Vista is 51 miles northwest of Douglas. Both are located in Cochise County. 

3
The following sections describe the results of our investigation. 

We first offer an overview of Operation Safeguard, its purpose and 

implementation strategy, its proposed duration of activity, and the need 

for increased detailing of agents to the Douglas area. We then describe 

benefits provided by various lodging providers in the Douglas area to the 

detailed Border Patrol agents. Next, we describe the issues concerning 

the rental by supervisory Border Patrol agents to the detailed agents. We 

then briefly discuss the allegations of retaliation against the 

complainants who raised these complaints. Finally, we provide our 

conclusions and recommendations. 

III. Background 

A. Operation Safeguard 99 

In October 1993, Silvestre Reyes, who was then the Chief of the El 

Paso Border Patrol Sector, initiated Operation Hold the Line in the El 

Paso Sector. This program deployed numerous Border Patrol personnel 

along the border in an effort to significantly reduce illegal border 

crossings in the area. 

Drawing on the El Paso initiative, in August 1994 the Attorney 

General and then-INS Commissioner Doris Meissner agreed to establish 

a border enforcement program called the National Border Strategy. This 

was a multi-phase, multi-year enforcement strategy designed to secure 

control along the southwest border. The strategy changed the Border 

Patrol’s emphasis on apprehending illegal entrants to an emphasis on 

preventing their crossing the border in the first place. As part of the new 

strategy, the Border Patrol staged many agents in fixed positions along 

the border. The Border Patrol also directed attention to the points of 

entry into the United States, the primary staging areas, and the egress 

away from the border once illegal entry was made. The strategy was 

designed to shift crossings to remoter areas where it was harder to cross, 

thereby deterring crossing in total. 

 

In October 1994, the San Diego Sector initiated Operation 

Gatekeeper as part of the new strategy. In August 1997, Operation Rio 

Grande was initiated in the McAllen Sector. In each of these operations, 

the Border Patrol augmented the sector’s resources by detailing into the 

sector agents and personnel from other areas. 

In January 1999, Operation “Safeguard 99” was established in the 

Tucson Sector. Although originally formed in 1994 at a much smaller 

4
level,4 the operation was expanded in 1999 to strengthen Tucson Sector’s 

enforcement operations. 

The Tucson Sector is composed of eight stations – Ajo, Casa 

Grande, Douglas, Naco, Nogales, Sonoita, Tucson, and Willcox. The 

sector extends across 261 miles of Arizona’s southern border, from the 

eastern edge of Yuma County, Arizona to New Mexico. The Tucson 

Sector separated its geographic area into three priority target quadrants 

– Nogales, Douglas, and Ajo and the western desert. 

Based on the historically high volume of illegal crossers, Phase I of 

Operation Safeguard 99 focused on the Nogales area. The INS formed 

deterrence units, tactical interdiction units, tactical response units, 

operation disruption units and immigration checkpoints along various 

roadways leading from the border. The success of the INS’s strategy 

involved (1) gaining control of the area, (2) maintaining control of the 

area, and (3) expanding to other areas as the illegal flow of entry shifted. 

As noted above, this strategy was a resource-intensive effort, 

requiring many additional Border Patrol personnel. Because Border 

Patrol employees do not sign Mobility Agreements obligating them to 

accept reassignments based on the needs of the Border Patrol, 

management was unable to involuntarily transfer agents from other 

sectors to the Tucson Sector. Instead, agents from other sectors were 

detailed for temporary assignment, normally for 30 days, but in many 

cases for much longer periods. 

When Operation Safeguard 99 commenced in the beginning of 

1999, the Nogales Station had a permanent staff of 80 agents. A 

significant number of personnel, equipment and resources were detailed 

from the INS’s Western Region, primarily from the San Diego Sector, to 

the Tucson Sector. The Resource Support section of Operation 

Safeguard 99’s plan called for 125 INS employees to be detailed to the 

Tucson Sector each month. 

As part of Operation Safeguard 99, the Western Region drew on the 

San Diego Sector’s resources because that sector had gained and 

maintained control of its area of operations. In May 1999, approximately 

50 agents were detailed to the Nogales Station on a monthly basis. As 

the operation expanded, additional resources were sent to that area. 

 4

 Between 1994 and 1999, enhanced enforcement operations in the INS San Diego and El Centro, 

California Sectors caused illegal entrance patterns and smuggling operations to shift from southern 

California into Arizona. As a result, Operation Safeguard 99 greatly expanded the scope of the INS 

operations that Operation Safeguard had begun five years earlier. 

5
Toward the end of calendar year 1999, Tucson Sector management 

believed that it had gained an acceptable amount of control within the 

Nogales area. It therefore shifted its attention to the Naco/Douglas 

corridor. 

In January 2000, the Tucson Sector began Phase II of Operation 

Safeguard 99 at the Douglas Station. At the time, approximately 350 

agents were permanently assigned to that station, due to an increase in 

the hiring of BPAs. In addition, approximately 100 agents each month 

were detailed to the Douglas Station. 

As the Tucson Sector determined that it had an acceptable degree 

of control of Naco/Douglas corridor, Phase III was established in the Ajo 

and western desert area, which encompasses 120 miles of the border. 

This began in June 2001 and increased in the summer of 2002. 

Like other sectors’ operations in support of the INS’s National 

Strategy, Operation Safeguard 99’s proposed duration was contingent 

upon the Tucson Sector obtaining an acceptable degree of control of 

illegal immigration within its sphere of operation. Therefore, its plan did 

not set a timetable for its eventual termination, and Operation Safeguard 

is continuing. 

6
B. Selection of agents and handling of travel arrangements 

The Tucson Sector in concert with the Western Region determined 

the number of personnel and amount of resources that were needed to 

continue the operation. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the 

Western Region required the San Diego Border Patrol Sector to identify 

its personnel for detail to the Tucson Sector. 

The San Diego Sector, in agreement with the National Border 

Patrol Council, formed “Detail Management Teams” (DMT) at its stations. 

The DMTs, which included union officials, selected personnel from their 

stations to be detailed to Tucson. The selection criteria included 

seniority, entry of duty dates, previous details, and training. Some 

agents told us that they “volunteered” for their otherwise mandated detail 

to the Tucson Sector. There appeared to be little input from station 

management about who was selected or the length of their detail. 

Normally, the agent’s detail to the Tucson Sector was for 30 days. 

However, agents were often detailed from their permanent stations to the 

Tucson Sector for longer periods of time, some for more than a year. In 

fact, we found instances where agents moved out of their permanent 

homes, placed their personal effects in storage, and purchased homes in 

the Douglas area. 

The agents were normally given advance notice ranging from two 

days to one month of their detail. The degree of preparation the agents 

received prior to their detail varied. Some stations supplied an extensive 

information packet to agents prior to departure, containing such 

information as the names of hotels and apartments in the areas, a travel 

order and voucher checklist for preparing a voucher using the INS’s 

Travel Manager computer program, as well as other materials. Some 

agents recall seeing pamphlets posted on their stations’ bulletin boards 

advertising lodging that was available in the Douglas area. Other 

stations simply informed the agents that they had to report to a 

particular station in the Tucson Sector and left the logistics to those 

agents. 

Most agents told us that they were left on their own to make 

lodging arrangements. We found that agents who were on their first 

detail to Douglas and were searching for housing often relied upon the 

advice of other agents who had preceded them. 

In the beginning of the Douglas phase, the agents stayed primarily 

at the Gadsden Hotel, the largest commercial provider in the Douglas 

area. The Gadsden Hotel also offered a “meal voucher” program 

(described below), which made it attractive to stay there. Over time, 

7
other commercial and private lodging facilities in the Douglas and Sierra 

Vista areas began offering other programs as an incentive to attract 

Border Patrol lodgers. 

Upon arrival at the Douglas Station, the agents were given an area 

orientation briefing. Agents who we interviewed stated that some lodging 

providers handed out flyers and other promotional materials to the 

agents during their breaks. Those activities occurred outside the 

building where the briefings were being held. 

With regard to the completing and processing of their travel 

vouchers, the agents explained that other than the initial training they 

received at the Border Patrol Academy, they did not receive any training 

specific to the Operation Safeguard detail. Some agents, as required by 

INS policy, completed their travel vouchers using the INS’s Travel 

Manager database program, which was installed on some station’s 

computer systems. When the program was not working or not installed 

on the computer system, the agents gave their receipts and travel orders 

to their station’s administrative clerk, who then completed the vouchers. 

Some Supervisory Border Patrol Agents (SBPA) accompanied 

detailed agents from the San Diego and other sectors to the Tucson 

Sector for the operation. Those SBPAs had direct supervision for the 

detailed agents and wrote the detailed agents’ performance evaluations. 

Field Operations Supervisors, who were permanently assigned to Tucson 

Sector stations, had overall supervision for permanent and detailed 

agents working in those stations. 

Aside from their normal duties, a detailed SBPA was given the 

additional duty to review and approve travel vouchers for the detailed 

agents. In some cases, an SBPA at an agent’s home station reviewed the 

travel vouchers after the administrative staff had filled them out. We 

were informed that, normally, the SBPA merely glanced through the 

voucher and then signed it. At times, the SBPA had to review and 

approve vouchers from an entire shift of detailed agents. The sheer 

volume of vouchers being processed left little time for an in-depth review 

of them. After the vouchers were approved, they were returned to the 

agents, who in turn sent them to their permanent station or to the 

Finance Center. 

III. Findings 

The OIG investigated allegations that Border Patrol agents who 

were detailed to the Tucson Sector in support of Operation Safeguard 

were obtaining various “kickbacks” as an incentive to stay at various 

lodging facilities in the Douglas and Sierra Vista areas, and that the 

8
agents did not deduct a corresponding amount from their lodging or their 

Meals and Incidental Expense (M&IE) claims when they filed their travel 

vouchers. The incentives included cash, food vouchers, free meals, and 

memberships to gyms. It was further alleged that SBPAs who were 

assigned to the Douglas Station rented homes to subordinate agents. 

The OIG coordinated this investigation with the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office in Tucson, Arizona. The OIG also received information and 

assistance from the INS, the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of 

Special Counsel, and the General Services Administration. 

A. Incentives offered by lodging providers to detailed agents

During the time period we reviewed, the maximum daily rate was 

$55 for lodging and $30 for M&IE for the Douglas and Sierra Vista area. 

The following describes the lodging rates and the incentives offered by 

various lodging providers to detailed Border Patrol agents in the Douglas 

and Sierra Vista areas. 

1. Windemere Hotel 

A review of the travel vouchers identified 631 instances where a 

Border Patrol agent stayed at this commercial hotel in Sierra Vista, 

Arizona. An OIG interview of Kim Kaiser, the manager of the Windemere 

Hotel, revealed that the hotel’s single room rate was $55 per day plus 

tax. Kaiser noted that the hotel offered every guest a complimentary 

breakfast buffet and beverages at a nightly happy hour. It also gave 

extended-stay BPAs and other government employees a free membership 

at a local health club. Kaiser equated those services to those offered at 

the Embassy Suites Hotels. 

The OIG interviewed a sampling of 15 agents who rented at this 

hotel. They advised us that they accepted the incentives that were 

offered and did not reduce their claim for reimbursement. They said that 

they paid the full per diem lodging rate and received receipts reflecting 

their payments. 

The OIG OGC’s legal opinion, based on a review of General Services 

Administration regulations, indicates that federal employees can accept 

complimentary meals in this circumstance without that incentive 

affecting their per diem. We therefore concluded that the BPAs who 

stayed at this hotel could accept the breakfast buffet and happy hour 

beverages without taking corresponding reductions in their claims for per 

diem entitlements. It was also acceptable for the agents to use the gym, 

as there was no extra charge imposed on the government by their doing 

9
so. This benefit falls in the category of a promotional benefit the 

government could not use. 

2. Gadsden Hotel 

 

A review of the travel vouchers showed that 293 detailed Border 

Patrol employees had 455 instances of lodging at this commercial hotel, 

located in Douglas. An OIG interview of Robin Brekhus, the 

owner/manager of the Gadsden Hotel, revealed that the hotel’s standard 

single room rate was $55 per day plus tax. Brekhus offered that rate to 

every lodger. Based on availability, Brekhus initially gave state and 

federal employees an upgrade to a suite at no additional cost. With the 

influx of lodgers to the Douglas area, Brekhus was unable to offer all the 

government employees this upgrade. 

Brekhus discovered, however, that potential lodgers were staying 

at other hotels in the area that offered a complimentary breakfast and 

nightly happy hours. Consequently, to compete with those facilities, 

Brekhus provided BPAs and other extended-stay lodgers a $15 per day 

credit for use toward the purchase of meals in the Gadsden Hotel’s 

restaurant. Brekhus advised that the $15 per day credit was available to 

all government employees, senior citizens, tour groups, and movie 

groups. Brekhus noted that the $15 was a credit, not cash, which was 

applied toward the lodger’s restaurant bill, not toward the purchase of 

other items in the hotel or towards reducing the daily room rate. A BPA 

who did not eat meals in the hotel received no benefit from the credit. 

Brekhus gave the BPAs a receipt reflecting that they paid $55 per day for 

lodging. 

Based on an OIG subpoena, Brekhus released documents 

concerning BPAs who rented at the hotel and the amount of money they 

individually had credited to their restaurant bills. (Water damage in the 

basement of the hotel where the records were stored prevented Brekhus 

from providing information regarding 53 of the 455 instances.) A review 

of the 402 records that were available detailed that the individuals spent 

a total of $587,864.94 in lodging costs and that the hotel provided 

$121,586.99 in restaurant credits. 

Our interviews of a sample of 22 agents who stayed at this hotel 

revealed that they all paid the full per diem lodging rate, whether or not 

they took advantage of the credit and ate their meals in the hotel, and 

that they did not deduct from the reimbursement claims any credit for 

meals. 

The OIG OGC’s legal opinion concluded that these meal credits 

could be characterized in two ways. First, they could be considered the 

10
equivalent of a complimentary meal. As discussed above in connection 

with the Windemere Hotel, the government regulations permit employees 

to accept complimentary meals without requiring a reduction to their 

M&IE allowance. Alternatively, the meal credits could be considered 

promotional material. Under the regulations applicable at the time,5

employees were permitted to retain promotional materials if the 

government could not use them, no future benefit was forfeited by their 

acceptance, and they could not be redeemed for cash value. Because the 

meal credits satisfied these criteria, the OGC concluded the agents were 

entitled to retain the credits and no reduction to their M&IE was 

required. 

3. Mountain Vista Apartments and Supermarket 

Coupons 

A review of the travel vouchers identified that 48 detailed 

individuals had 206 instances of lodging at this apartment complex, 

located in Sierra Vista, Arizona. An OIG interview of [DELETED] of the 

Mountain Vista Apartments, revealed that she normally charged $1,050 

per month ($35 per day) for a one-bedroom furnished apartment. 

[DELETED] advised that she determined from her inquiries at the 

Windemere Hotel that the facility offered guests a complimentary 

breakfast and nightly happy hour. [DELETED] said that to remain 

competitive with that hotel, she offered Fry’s Supermarket food coupons 

as an incentive program to BPAs, to other government employees, and to 

military personnel. 

[DELETED] charged the BPA’s credit card the maximum allowable 

lodging rate of $55 per day. In turn, [DELETED] gave the BPAs up to 

$10 per day ($300 for a 30-day stay) in Fry’s Supermarket food coupons. 

The coupons were in $5, $10, $20 and $50 denominations. [DELETED] 

paid the supermarket the face value for those coupons. The BPAs could 

use those coupons, like cash, to purchase items at the supermarket. 

Regardless of the face value of the coupons, the BPAs could obtain from 

the supermarket a maximum of $4.99 in change. At the end of their 

stay, [DELETED] gave the BPAs a receipt reflecting that they had paid 

the full $55 per day for lodging. 

If [DELETED] had an adequate supply of apartments that she 

could have rented to agents at $35 per day, by charging the agents $55 

per day and giving some of them up to $10 per day in food coupons she 

realized a $10 per day profit over the rate that she would have normally 

charged renters. 

 5

 The rule was recently changed to allow government travelers to make personal use of promotional 

benefits earned on official travel. 

11
Based on an OIG subpoena, [DELETED] released documents and 

rental contract information to us. After reviewing those materials and 

comparing them with travel vouchers that were submitted by BPAs, we 

determined that 48 agents rented during the period under review. The 

records conclusively identified that 33 agents received a total of $20,940 

in food coupons. The average that the agents received was 

approximately $400. The maximum received by any agent was $2,700 

and the minimum was $80. [DELETED] had no information to indicate 

that the remaining 15 agents received any food coupons. All agents 

claimed the maximum lodging and M&IE entitlements on their travel 

vouchers and they were reimbursed based on their claims. 

Our interviews of a sample of 6 agents who rented at this 

apartment determined that they paid the full per diem lodging rate and 

that they received a receipt reflecting their payments. They also used the 

coupons to purchase food and other items at the supermarket. None of 

the agents stated that they turned in any of the coupons to the 

supermarket merely to get cash back.

The OIG OGC’s legal opinion determined that unlike the meal 

credit offered at the Gadsden Hotel, the supermarket coupons should not 

be equated to a complimentary meal because their use was not limited to 

the purchase of food items. Rather, the coupons had to be considered 

promotional materials. Moreover, because the coupons were not tied to 

any particular stay at the apartment complex or to any particular guest 

and therefore theoretically could have been used by the INS to reduce the 

cost of sending travelers to the area (since the agents could receive some 

cash by using them), the OGC concluded they were not promotional 

materials that could be retained under the regulations. Instead, the 

agents should have turned them over to the INS. 

The OGC opinion noted, however, that the regulations governing 

promotional materials assume that the employing agency has established 

a procedure by which it will receive promotional materials from its 

employees. 41 CFR, 301-53.1(b). We determined that the INS neither 

provided the agents with any guidance about the use of the coupons nor 

made known to them any such procedures. Accordingly, we fault the INS 

management for failing to take control of the situation rather than the 

individual agents who used the coupons. 

We also provided these facts to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tucson 

for a prosecutive decision. Citing no evidence of criminal intent on the 

part of either [DELETED], the apartment complex owners, or the agents 

and a lack of training for the agents in preparing travel vouchers, the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office declined criminal prosecutive interest in this 

matter. 

12
4. Southern Arizona Realty Company 

A review of travel vouchers identified that 37 detailed agents rented 

apartments or homes through this commercial real estate firm, located in 

Douglas, Arizona. An OIG interview of [DELETED] of the Southern 

Arizona Real Estate Company, revealed that he initially gave 

presentations to detailed BPAs at the area orientation briefings.6 He 

passed out advertising flyers and his business cards. 

[DELETED] stated that to compete with the $15 per day credit for 

meals offered by the Gadsden Hotel he gave the BPAs a $15 per day 

reduction toward their lodging. [DELETED] explained that the BPAs 

effectively paid him only $40 per day, but that he gave them receipts 

reflecting that they had paid him the full $55 per day for their lodging. 

During our investigation, [DELETED] became concerned about that 

business practice and in mid-summer 2001 he discontinued giving a $15 

per day rate reduction for lodging. At that point, similar to the incentive 

offered at the Mountain Vista Apartments, [DELETED] began providing 

up to a $10 per day reimbursement to BPAs through his purchase of 

Safeway Supermarket food coupons. [DELETED] stated that under his 

Safeway food coupon incentive program, the BPAs paid him the full $55 

per day for lodging. In turn, [DELETED] gave the BPAs a receipt 

reflecting that full payment. 

Through an OIG subpoena, [DELETED] provided documents 

describing the BPAs who rented through his firm and the actual amount 

of money that they paid for lodging.7 We identified that 37 agents paid 

[DELETED] a total of $74,235, but that they collectively claimed a total of 

$87,275 on their travel vouchers. Of those, 18 agents took advantage of 

the $15 per day discount credit, and collectively they were reimbursed 

$12,725 more than they actually paid [DELETED]. The maximum credit 

that one agent received was $3,075 and the least that an agent received 

was $150. 

Additionally, during our interview, [DELETED] advised us that he 

gave a total of $3,585 in food coupons to eight renters. Based on the 

 6

 The Douglas Station conducted area orientation briefings for incoming detailed agents. The briefings 

were initially held at the Gadsden Hotel, since large gatherings could be accommodated there. As the 

number of detailers increased, however, the briefings were moved to the Army National Guard Armory

facility in Douglas. 7 We determined, however, through reviews of [DELETED] records, examination of travel vouchers

submitted by agents who rented through him, and interviews of those agents that [DELETED] kept

incomplete records of his transactions with the renters. 

13
information [DELETED] provided, we determined that the most that one 

agent received was $1,080 and the least was $140. The remaining 11 

renters received neither cash nor food coupons. All agents claimed the 

maximum lodging and M&IE entitlements on their travel vouchers and 

they were reimbursed based on their claims. 

Our interviews of 33 agents8 who rented through the Southern 

Arizona Realty Company described that they paid that company the full 

$55 per diem lodging rate. Sometime after they paid the full rate, 

[DELETED] or his staff gave renters up to $15 per day in cash back as a 

comparable incentive to that being offered at the Gadsden Hotel. The 

agents also advised that [DELETED] discontinued giving cash back to 

renters and instead offered the lodgers food coupons, which were 

redeemable at a local supermarket. One agent returned the food 

coupons believing that if she kept them she would have to deduct their 

value from her M&IE entitlement. 

The OIG OGC’s legal opinion determined that the BPAs who 

accepted the cash rebates from [DELETED] should not have claimed the 

full lodging allowance of $55 per day on their travel vouchers. They were 

entitled to be reimbursed only for the amount they actually paid for 

lodging, in this case, $40 per day. The use of the food coupons was 

deemed promotional items comparable to those offered at the Mountain 

Vista Apartments discussed above. 

We provided these facts to the Tucson U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

Again citing insufficient evidence of criminal intent on the part of the 

agents and a lack of training for the agents in preparing travel vouchers, 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined criminal prosecutive interest in this 

matter. With regard to [DELETED], the U.S Attorney’s Office stated 

because he was matching incentives offered by other hotels he could 

argue that he was simply engaging in the practice of providing rebates to 

customers. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined prosecution against 

[DELETED].

 

5. [DELETED] 

[DELETED] is a civilian who rented his four-bedroom home in 

Douglas, Arizona to agents who were detailed to that area. He charged 

each agent $55 per day for lodging. In turn, he offered the renters $8 per 

day, in cash, as an incentive for their stay. [DELETED] explained that he 

intended the money to cover the cost of breakfast, which he, unlike the 

hotels, could not provide to the renters. 

8 We determined that four employees had resigned from the INS, and we did not interview them regarding 

this matter. 

14
In response to an OIG subpoena, [DELETED] released copies of his 

rental contracts. After reviewing those documents and comparing them 

with travel vouchers submitted by BPAs, we determined that 27 

individuals rented [DELETED] home during the period under review. 

[DELETED] advised that one agent returned the money to him. 

Additionally, three BPAs declined [DELETED] offer of cash but opted 

instead to have [DELETED] stock the refrigerator with food. [DELETED] 

paid a total of $4,768 in cash to 23 BPAs. The average payout was $224. 

Our interviews of 24 agents9 who rented [DELETED] house 

determined that they paid him the full per diem lodging rate and they 

received receipts reflecting their payments. Sometime after paying their 

rent, [DELETED] placed up to $8 per day in cash, in stacks, in the 

house. One stack of money was intended for each renter. Two agents 

stated that they did not believe it was appropriate to accept the cash, 

and they declined [DELETED] offer. The stated that instead, [DELETED] 

stocked the refrigerator with food items prior to the agents’ arrival. 

Another agent advised that he returned the cash because he did not 

believe that it was appropriate to take the money. The agent asked a coworker, who was not staying at [DELETED] house, to witness that 

transaction. The witness confirmed that the renter returned the money. 

Similar to the Southern Arizona Realty case discussed above, the 

OIG OGC’s legal opinion was that the BPAs who accepted cash rebates 

from [DELETED] should not have claimed the full lodging allowance of 

$55 per day on their travel vouchers. Rather, they were required to claim 

only what they actually paid, in this case $47 per day. The food items 

that [DELETED] stocked in the refrigerator were deemed to be equivalent 

to a complimentary meal, which the agents could accept without 

reducing their claim for per diem reimbursement. 

Also reflecting similar reasoning as described in the case above, 

however, attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined criminal 

prosecution in this matter. They cited no evidence of criminal intent on 

the part of the agents and a lack of training for the agents in preparing 

travel vouchers. They further noted that [DELETED], like [DELETED], 

was matching incentives offered by the hotels. They stated that he could 

argue therefore that he was simply engaging in the practice of providing 

rebates to customers. 

 

6. Brewery Avenue Designs, Bisbee, Arizona 

 9

 We determined during our investigation that three agents who rented [DELETED] home had resigned 

from the Border Patrol, and consequently they were not interviewed regarding this matter. 

15
We personally interviewed the manager of this lodging facility, 

which offered apartments to renters. He stated that he charged the BPAs 

the full per diem lodging rate and that he did not offer them any 

incentives. We conducted a random sample of agents who rented from 

this provider, and determined that they paid the full per diem lodging 

rate and they did not receive any incentives. 

7. Gateway Studio Suites, Sierra Vista, Arizona 

We personally interviewed the manager of this hotel. She stated 

that she charged the BPAs the full per diem lodging rate and that she did 

not offer them any incentives. We conducted a random sample of agents 

who rented from this provider and determined that they paid the full per 

diem lodging rate and did not receive any incentives.

8. Motel 6, Douglas, Arizona 

We personally interviewed the manager of this motel. She stated 

that she charged the BPAs the full per diem lodging rate and that she did 

not offer them any incentives. We conducted a random sample of agents 

who rented from this provider and determined that they paid the full per 

diem lodging rate and they did not receive any incentives. 

9. Valle Realty, Bisbee, Arizona 

We personally interviewed the owner/broker of this real estate 

company. He said that he managed rental properties in the Douglas and 

Bisbee areas and that he charged the BPAs the full per diem lodging rate. 

He did not offer them any incentives. We conducted a random sample of 

agents who rented from this provider and determined that they paid the 

full per diem lodging rate and they did not receive any incentives.

10. Personal Interviews of selected Lodging Providers

We mailed a survey to 70 other lodging providers requesting their 

assistance with this investigation. Based on the providers’ interaction 

with detailed agents, we randomly selected 10 lodging providers for 

personal interviews. During our interviews, we expanded on the 

questions posed in our survey. The following is the list of providers who 

we interviewed.

Provider

Isabel Combel, 1502 8th Street, Douglas, Arizona 

Eli Properties, 1509 Mission Drive, Douglas, Arizona 

Carlos Fernandez, 2075 11th Street, Douglas, Arizona 

16
George Haloulos, 4719 Territorial Loop, Sierra Vista, Arizona 

Esther Goff, 5077 E. Goldfinch Circle, Sierra Vista, Arizona 

Linda Marquez, 3622 Camino el Jardin, Sierra Vista, Arizona 

Provider

Rayna Nichols, 2335 11th Street, Douglas, Arizona 

Carmen Rodriguez, 2065 13th Street, Douglas, Arizona 

Rudy Sierra, 2514 E. 11th Street, Douglas, Arizona 

Lori Sanchez, 100 Golflinks Road, Douglas, Arizona 

The properties included apartments, homes, and trailers. We 

determined from our interviews that all these providers charged each 

agent $55 per day for lodging. Except for [DELTED], no provider offered 

any incentives. [DELETED], a former assistant manager of the Mountain 

Vista Apartments, estimated that she gave a total of $2,400 in food 

coupons to the six agents who rented from her. 

11. Questionnaires and Surveys

Due to the large number of lodging providers identified in our twoyear audit of agents who were temporarily detailed to Operation 

Safeguard, we did not interview all of them. We supplemented our 

interviews with a letter and survey questionnaire that was sent to 70 

selected lodging providers. This sample was taken from the entire 

lodging list we compiled, as broken down into groups represented by the 

number of instances each rented to a detailed agent. The number of 

letters sent to the providers in each group was proportional to the 

amount of business they did with the agents. The questionnaire asked 

them to identify, among other things, their lodging rates and any special 

incentives that they offered their renters. 

The majority responded that they charged the maximum lodging 

per diem rate and did not offer any incentives. Fourteen establishments 

offered a complimentary breakfast and nightly happy hours. Seventeen 

others offered food coupons or meals in their restaurants. Our review 

determined that these lodging providers gave $61,283 in food coupons to 

BPAs who rented at their locations. 

Provider Amenity

AmeriSuites, Tucson None 

Angius Hideaways None

AV Properties Cash rebate 

Arizona Copper Hills Realty Food coupons 

Ajo Realty Food coupons 

Baymont Inn and Suites None

17
Best Western Imperial Valley Food coupons 

Best Western Plaza Inn None 

Best Western Mission Inn Free breakfast 

Provider Amenity

Bisbee Inn None

Bisbee Rentals Food coupons 

Bisbee Realty Food coupons 

Brewery Avenue Designs None 

Brunners Inn None 

Canyon Rose Suites Free breakfast 

Carroll Drive Apartments None 

Casa Grande Suite None 

Comfort Inn Free breakfast 

Cooper Crown Realty Food coupons 

Days Inn, Nogales Free breakfast 

Days Inn, Willcox None 

Del Sur Enterprises None 

Desert Jewel Apartments None 

Dixie’s Desert Realty Food coupons 

Eli Property Management None 

El Rancho Motel, Bisbee Meals 

El Rancho Motel Meals 

Embassy Suites, Tucson Airport Free breakfast 

Embassy Suites, Tucson Free breakfast 

Evan’s Apartments Food coupons 

Executive Apartments (closed)10

Francisco Grande Resort Meals 

Garden Plaza Apartments Laundry service 

Gateway Studio Suites Free breakfast 

Geronimo Trails Apartments None 

Green Valley Lodge None 

Howard’s Guest House Food coupons 

La Quinta Inn, Tucson None 

La Siesta Motel, Ajo Meals 

Long Realty, Bisbee None 

Long Realty, Sierra Vista None 

Marine Hotel, Ajo None 

Montego Bay Apartments None 

Motel 6, Douglas None 

Mountain Steppes Apartments None 

Muckers Hideaways None 

Oasis Apartments None 

 10 We identified and interviewed the one agent who rented at this location. The agent advised that he was 

not offered nor did he receive any incentives. 

18
OK Property Management None 

Park View Apartments None 

Rancho La Perilla I None 

Provider Amenity

Rancho La Perilla II None 

Ranchito Apartments None 

Realty Executive, Yuma None 

Residence Inn Free breakfast 

Ruben Nogales Rental Food coupons 

S. Redemer Rentals None 

RM Properties Food coupons 

San Jose Lodge Meals 

Schomac Property Management Laundry service 

Sierra Suites, Sierra Vista Meals 

Sun Canyon Inn Free breakfast 

Super 8 Motel, Gila Bend None 

Super 8 Motel, Nogales Free breakfast 

Super 8 Motel, Sierra Vista Free breakfast 

Thunder Mountain Inn Free breakfast 

Valle Realty None

Valley Lodge Meals 

Viscount Suites Free breakfast 

Walker House None 

Wellesley Inn and Suites Free breakfast 

B. Supervisory BPAs renting to detailed agents 

We also investigated the allegations that SBPAs, who had direct 

supervisory authority over detailed agents, rented out rooms in their 

homes or bought properties in the Douglas and Sierra Vista area to rent 

to those agents. 

Our investigation found that with the exception of one agent who 

worked on one of the SBPA’s shift for one month, none of the SBPAs had 

any direct supervisory responsibilities for any of the other BPAs who 

rented their properties.11 We also found no evidence that the SBPAs 

selected or played any role in the selection of the BPAs who were detailed 

to the Douglas Station or in determining the length of their temporary 

assignments. 

 11 Technically, since the SBPA is a GS-12 grade position, a SBPA could theoretically have authority over 

agents who were at the GS-11 or lower grade levels. However, we found no evidence that the SBPAs 

directed their renters’ activities in this case. 

19
The OIG OGC provided a legal opinion regarding SBPAs or their 

wives renting to agents, which is detailed below (See Attachment 3). 

Additionally, the Tucson U.S. Attorney’s Office declined criminal 

prosecutive interest. 

1. SBPA rented a room in primary residence 

Our investigation identified that on separate occasions, one 

Douglas SBPA rented a bedroom in his primary residence to two BPAs 

while they were detailed to the Douglas Station. In a sworn affidavit, the 

SBPA admitted that he gave those BPAs receipts falsely reflecting that 

they had paid him the $55 per day maximum lodging rate. 

In a sworn affidavit, one of these BPAs admitted to paying the 

SBPA about one-half the amount that was noted on his receipts. The 

BPA then filed those false receipts with his travel vouchers and was 

reimbursed the full entitlement based on his claim. The U.S. Attorney’s 

Office declined prosecution in this matter. We referred this matter to INS 

OIA for consideration of appropriate disciplinary action. 

In a sworn affidavit, the second BPA maintained that he paid the 

SBPA the full $55 per day and received a receipt from him reflecting that 

rate. The BPA then filed his travel voucher and was reimbursed based 

on that receipt. The BPA’s conduct in this case and his rental at the 

[DELETED] residence (detailed above) were further reviewed in a separate 

OIG investigation. Those matters were referred to the Tucson U.S. 

Attorney’s Office and are pending consideration of criminal prosecution 

of the agents for providing false statements under oath. 

Finally, the OIG OGC’s legal opinion determined that when a 

government employee rents a room in a private home, the government 

regulations treat this arrangement as nonconventional lodging. The 

regulations provide that employees who stay in nonconventional lodging 

may be reimbursed only for the actual costs the host incurs 

accommodating them. Moreover, the renting employee must be able to 

substantiate those costs to the agency, which then must determine if 

those costs are reasonable before reimbursing the employee. 

. 

Accordingly, the BPAs who rented rooms in the homes of other 

Border Patrol employees could have legitimately claimed lodging 

reimbursement only to the extent that they could show that their hosts 

incurred additional expense by putting them up and that this expense 

was reasonable. Absent such evidence, no lodging reimbursement was 

appropriate. 

 

2. SBPAs’ rental of income properties 

20
We also determined that two Douglas Station SBPAs and their 

wives purchased rental income properties in the Sierra Vista and 

Douglas areas after the start of Operation Safeguard, and rented the 

properties to detailed agents. 

The SBPAs voluntarily released copies of their rental contracts to 

us. After reviewing those documents and comparing them with the travel 

vouchers submitted, we identified 4 agents who had 13 rental instances 

at one SBPA’s property. We found that in 2000 the SBPA and his wife 

received $8,745 in rental income and in 2001 they received $28,545 in 

rental income. 

We identified 6 agents who had 10 rental instances at the other 

SBPA’s property. We found that in 2001 the SBPA and his wife received 

$15,000 in rental income. Both SBPAs voluntarily released copies of 

their income tax returns to the OIG. We found that they had claimed the 

income that they received from the rental properties on their income tax 

returns. 

Our interviews of the agents who rented from the SBPAs revealed 

that the renters conducted all their business transactions with the 

SBPAs’ wives. The renters claimed they paid the full per diem lodging 

rate and they received receipts reflecting their payments. They stated 

that they did not receive any lodging incentives. 

 The OIG OGC’s legal opinion concluded that this arrangement 

was permissible because the wives rented income properties rather than 

rooms in a primary residence. Accordingly, the wives could charge a 

market rate and the government would reimburse the renters up to the 

maximum allowed lodging per diem rate. 

3. Other cases 

We identified 7 other SBPAs who, in some case with their wives, 

rented properties to detailed agents. We determined that three of those 

INS employees had engaged in suspected fraudulent activities when they 

rented out properties in the Douglas and Sierra Vista areas. The 

activities included renting an apartment and then sub-leasing it to 

detailed agents at a reduced lodging rate but providing the renters with 

receipts falsely reflecting that they paid the full lodging rate. 

Additionally, we discovered that while on detail to Douglas, one 

BPA purchased a home in Sierra Vista but provided suspect receipts to 

support his travel voucher claim that he was renting that property from a 

real estate management firm. Based on those agents’ potential violations 

of federal criminal statutes, we have initiated separate investigations 

21
regarding their conduct. Those investigations are currently being 

coordinated with the Tucson U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

V. INS’s Processing of Travel Vouchers 

Our investigation focused on cash kickbacks and amenities offered 

by lodging providers in the Douglas and Sierra Vista areas. However, 

OIG auditors that reviewed the travel vouchers identified errors on 

numerous vouchers, resulting in $17,362.15 in overpayments and 

$931.48 in underpayments by the INS. These errors included agents 

claiming lodging costs twice for the same day, claiming to have paid a 

higher lodging rate than that reflected on the receipt, and claiming a 

higher M&IE rate than the maximum for the lodging area. These errors 

were not detected by the INS reviewing supervisors or by the INS Finance 

Center in Dallas, Texas. 

We referred these errors to INS OIA for review and determination if 

systemic weaknesses existed at the INS Finance Center, Dallas, Texas. 

The OIG recommended to the INS OIA that it review the travel voucher 

approval process and the Dallas Finance Center, Travel Section. INS OIA 

referred the matter on August 7, 2002 to Judy Harrison, the INS 

Assistant Commissioner for Financial Management. 

On December 12, 2002 INS OIA provided Assistant Commissioner 

Harrison’s response to the OIG recommendation. She advised that the 

Dallas Finance Center had identified the errors in April 2001 and 

corrective measures were taken by informing travel payment staff that 

applicable per diem rates are based on the ordered point of travel and the 

lodging location at that time. Additionally, she said that the office that 

prepared the travel authorizations was contacted, and the requirements 

of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) were discussed with that office in 

detail. Her response documented further measures that the INS was 

taking to address the deficiencies, to include additional training for INS 

staff conducted by the General Services Administration on the FTR 

requirements, and the implementation on October 1, 2002 of the INS’s 

new Federal Financial Management System. Her response also asserted 

that the errors identified by the OIG represented an immaterial amount 

of money and the time required to further analyze those computations 

would not be cost effective to seek reimbursement for overpayments (See 

Exhibit 4). 

In addition, in conjunction with our audit of travel vouchers 

mentioned above, we identified 21 questionable instances of BPAs 

sharing the same lodging location (such as a husband and wife renting 

22
the same place at the same time), potential double billing, filing 

unsupported claims, and receiving overpayments for lodging. We 

investigated those matters and determined that 16 instances were 

unsubstantiated. The remaining five potential irregularities were 

evaluated and referred to INS OIA for administrative inquiries. We have 

asked INS OIA report their findings and any follow-up actions to the OIG. 

Two of these complaints has been reported to the OIG as 

unsubstantiated, and the other three are still pending.

VI. Alleged Retaliation Against INS Complainants

A. INS OIA Special Agent and Douglas APAIC

As noted above, the two complainants in this case also made 

allegations about their treatment after they brought forward their 

complaints to the INS. They alleged that the INS OIA agent who initially 

was assigned to investigate their allegations and the Douglas Assistant 

Patrol Agent in Charge (APAIC) compromised their identities and status 

as the complainants during this investigation by informing the subjects 

of the investigation that the complainants had made allegations against 

them. The complainants also claimed that the INS OIA agent threatened 

them and refused to investigate the matters that they presented to him.12 

Our investigation revealed that during the INS OIA investigation, 

Notices to Appear (NTA) were distributed to the two complainants and to 

other individuals who the INS OIA agent intended to interview. Once 

those individuals received their NTAs, they were able to tell others about 

their status and the INS OIA investigation. However, we did not find that 

the INS OIA agent or the Douglas APAIC disclosed the complainants’ 

identities to the subjects of the investigations. 

We also reviewed the complainants’ claims that the INS OIA agent 

threatened them during their interviews. The INS OIA agent interviewed 

the two complainants and the other agents on their scheduled dates and 

times, and tape-recorded all of those interviews. We conducted a 

comparative analysis of the transcriptions with the audiotapes of those 

interviews. We determined that the recorder was not turned off during 

those interviews and that no threatening or harassing comments were 

detected from the tape or contained in the transcriptions. We did not 

find sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the INS OIA agent 

threatened the complainants. 

 12 In June 2001, the two complainants who provided the initial allegations as well as 

three other Douglas BPAs filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Tucson,

Arizona alleging age and unlawful discrimination in employment.

23
B. Complainants’ training and promotion opportunities 

The two complainants further alleged that the Douglas APAIC and 

other Douglas SBPAs harassed them by denying one of them a training 

assignment and the other a promotion opportunity and a training 

request. 

With regard to the complaint about the training assignment, the 

complaining agent elected not to take the required downgrade from a GS12 supervisory position to a GS-11 to become eligible for the training 

position at the Border Patrol Academy. Accordingly, he was not selected 

for an assignment to the training academy. 

 We also found that the other complainant, who was a Senior 

Patrol Agent (SPA), was not selected for a temporary promotion position 

to a SBPA because he was not assigned to the unit that had the 

promotion vacancy. Only agents who were assigned to units that had 

vacancies were eligible to fill those positions. With regard to his training 

request, he did not follow established procedures for requesting training. 

In addition, when he did submit the requested information, he provided a 

false date of rank, thereby increasing his apparent seniority. Since 

seniority is a determining factor in selecting individuals for training, the 

complainant’s misleading information caused him to be ineligible for 

consideration. 

In sum, our investigation did not substantiate the allegations that 

the complainants were denied promotions or training because of their 

complaints. 

VII. INS’s Corrective Actions 

On December 7, 2001, John P. Chase, the INS OIA Director, 

submitted a Procedural Reform Recommendation entitled “Lodging 

During Detail Assignments,” to George H. Bohlinger III, Executive 

Associate Commissioner for Management and Michael A. Pearson, 

Executive Associate Commissioner for Field Operations, 2001 (See 

Exhibit 5). Chase’s memorandum pointed out various lodging issues and 

concerns that the OIG identified as occurring during Operation 

Safeguard. Chase also discussed the contents of this memorandum with 

the Chief and the Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol, as well as the 

Border Patrol Sector management in Tucson. 

Subsequent to Chase’s actions, Judy Harrison, the INS Assistant 

Commissioner for Financial Management, transmitted a memorandum in 

April 2002 to all INS employees concerning their lodging during 

temporary assignments (See Exhibit 6). The memorandum referred to 

24
the Federal Travel Regulations and discussed the regulations concerning 

the types of accommodations, staying with friends or relatives, obtaining 

proper and correct receipts for lodging amounts, and receiving vouchers 

or credits from commercial lodging facilities. 

Additionally, beginning in April 2002, the Tucson Border Patrol 

Sector began briefing all incoming detailed agents about rental and 

housing issues (See Exhibit 7). Tucson Sector officials began advising 

the agents about the regulations regarding submitting proper receipts for 

lodging. The Sector also instituted a practice of attaching Assistant 

Commissioner Harrison’s April 2002 memorandum to all travel 

authorization forms for all employees who are being detailed. 

In April 2002, William Veal, the Chief of the San Diego Border 

Patrol Sector, issued a memorandum to all Sector employees that 

addresses various questions relating to lodging at commercial and 

private lodging establishments. It provides overall guidance and details 

ethical and professional standards associated with filing travel vouchers 

(See Exhibit 8.) 

In September 2002, then INS Commissioner James W. Ziglar 

issued a memorandum to all employees, entitled “Claiming Expenses for 

Official Travel.” The memorandum advised employees of misconduct 

issues regarding the submission of travel vouchers and provided 

additional guidance for any travel related questions (See Exhibit 9.) 

VIII. OIG’s Conclusions and Recommendations 

In this review, the OIG probed allegations related to fraud and 

other irregularities in connection with reimbursement for lodging on 

travel vouchers submitted by INS employees who were temporarily 

detailed to the Tucson Sector in support of Operation Safeguard. We 

reviewed more than 3000 vouchers and conducted many interviews of 

INS employees and lodging providers. During our review, we identified 

many instances of false and improper claims by INS agents as well as 

systemic weaknesses in the voucher approval process, including the 

process employed by the travel office of the Dallas, Texas Finance Center. 

Our investigation found that when Operation Safeguard was 

initiated, INS management failed to plan adequately for the enormous 

lodging requirements to support detailed employees. The INS did not 

provide to detailed agents adequate guidance related to temporary 

assignments in support of Operation Safeguard until after these 

allegations surfaced. 

25
Moreover, the INS never attempted to negotiate a lodging rate at 

local hotels for those individuals at a lower cost to the government. We 

believe the INS could have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars had it 

negotiated reduced lodging rates for the detailed BPAs and comparably 

reduced the agents’ per diem entitlements. For example, the Mountain 

Vista Apartments raised its rental rate from $35 per night to $55 per 

night (the maximum lodging rate) and then offered a $10 per day food 

coupon. The effect was to raise the cost to the INS by $20 per night, 

although Mountain Vista increased its profits by $10 per night. We 

believe these examples indicate that the INS could have negotiated 

reduced rates for detailed INS employees, saving significant sums for the 

INS in travel costs. 

We also determined that many INS employees received reductions 

or cash back to rent at certain lodging facilities.13 In response to these 

rebates, some INS employees returned or refused to accept the cash 

kickbacks, but they were in the minority. During our interviews, 

however, many INS agents and lodging providers attempted to justify this 

practice as being equivalent to offering or accepting free meals or food 

coupons. We believe that such a justification is not remotely persuasive. 

Because the U. S. Attorney’s office has declined criminal 

prosecution on most cases, we are referring those matters to the INS for 

appropriate administrative action. We believe that the INS should 

examine each of these cases and make a decision as to whether the 

employee should be held accountable for their actions. At a minimum, 

we believe that employees who accepted cash kickbacks from lodging 

providers and claimed the full allowable amount for lodging and M&IE 

should be required to reimburse the government this amount. 

Employees who falsified their vouchers in support of their claims should 

be appropriately disciplined. 

We are still investigating a few criminal cases, which will remain 

open until judicial proceedings are complete. The activities include 

agents renting an apartment and then sub-leasing it to detailed agents at 

a reduced lodging rate but providing the renters with receipts falsely 

reflecting that they paid the full lodging rate. Additionally, one BPA 

purchased a home in Sierra Vista but provided suspect receipts to 

support his travel voucher claim that he was renting that property from a 

real estate management firm. Based on those individuals’ potential 

violations of federal criminal statutes, we have initiated separate 

investigations regarding their conduct. 

 

 13 One lodging provider, during a surreptitious telephone call, openly offered a cash kickback and false 

receipt to an OIG agent posing as a Border Patrol detailee. 

26
We also believe that this review provides lessons for future INS 

operations that involve extensive details of agents. In our review, we 

found that lodging for detailed agents was available below the per diem 

rate, as evidenced by the amenities offered to many agents, including 

cash rebates. When the INS embarks on similar large-scale operations 

such as Operation Safeguard, we believe it should consider the 

availability of lodging accommodations in the area and seek to negotiate 

a reduced rate for lodging. 14 The INS should also consider entering into 

direct arrangements with lodging providers to house detailed agents. 

The OIG has recently completed a related investigation of the 

Border Patrol in Charleston, South Carolina, involving similar allegations 

as to BPAs who were temporarily detailed to the Border Patrol Training 

Academy. The OIG’s report recommended that INS management 

consider the implementation of a policy similar to that used by the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Brunswick, 

Georgia, which requires that trainees stay at lodging facilities under 

contract with FLETC, unless those accommodations are unavailable. 

The OIG believes that INS management should apply this same policy to 

long-term details requiring large personnel support such as Operation 

Safeguard. 

The OIG has been advised that INS OIA has recently initiated 

discussions with INS management and the Border Patrol to consider the 

creation of a position for housing management that would oversee 

housing at the training academies and locations with long term detail 

assignments

We also recommend that the INS provide more guidance to its 

employees who are detailed regarding the Federal Travel Regulations and 

temporary details. Most of the agents who we interviewed informed us 

that they received little or no training in properly preparing travel 

vouchers other than what they had received during their initial training 

at the Border Patrol Academy. All advised that they received no training 

specifically regarding extended-stay travel as it related to their detail to 

Operation Safeguard. The INS should also train supervisors and other 

officials who review and approve travel authorizations and vouchers, 

 14 This would be consistent with Department policy regarding extended travel. In a 

memorandum issued in September 1998, Former Assistant Attorney General for 

Administration Stephen R. Colgate advised that "when a travel assignment is expected 

to last more than 30 days and where it is possible to secure lodging and meals at less

than the maximum allowable by travel regulations, total per diem, consisting of lodging 

plus the M&IE allowance, should be reduced . . . ." The memorandum also states that 

when the assignment is expected to exceed 90 days, such a reduction is mandatory. 

See Revised Policy Guidelines for Authorizing And Administering Extended Travel

Assignments (Exhibit 10). 

27
support staff who prepare travel authorizations, and the Dallas Finance 

Center auditors in the respective oversight responsibilities regarding 

travel vouchers. In addition, the INS should conduct training of all 

employees in their use of its automated Travel Management Program. 

The guidance should discuss in clear and unequivocal terms how 

to treat promotional items, including complimentary meals, credits for 

meals, and cash reimbursements. The memoranda distributed by INS 

after the onset of this investigation are useful, but they should be 

supplemented by comprehensive guidance that is made available to all 

INS employees when they are detailed. Moreover, we recommend that 

INS develop a process for handling promotional items from employees 

that the employees obtain through the course of their official duties. 

We also believe that the INS should strengthen its practices for 

filing and reviewing travel vouchers. We found that the review process at 

each level was lacking. The Dallas Finance Center needs to ensure its 

financial examination procedures correct the various problems in this 

area, including paying claims for double lodging costs for the same day, 

paying claims for lodging costs even when the claimed amount exceeds 

the authorized rate for a particular area, and paying claims for a higher 

rate than what was itemized on submitted receipts. 

In sum, this investigation found troubling practices on the part of 

the INS and many of its agents regarding lodging reimbursement. We 

believe that the INS should take strong and immediate action to prevent 

these types of practices from recurring. 

28
29

List of Exhibits 

1. OIG letter to INS OIA, November 20, 2001, requesting INS furnish 

copies of agents’ travel vouchers. 

2. OIG OGC’s legal opinion, May 28, 2002, relating to acceptance of 

amenities. 

3. OIG OGC’s legal opinion, November 26, 2002, regarding SBPAs 

renting to detailed agents. 

4. INS response, December 12, 2002, processing of travel vouchers. 

5. INS OIA Procedural Reform Recommendations, December 12, 

2001. 

6. INS Assistant Commissioner for Financial Management memo, 

April 2002. 

7. Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent David Aguilar’s memo, April 25, 

2002, relating to Local Actions taken on Allegations. 

8. San Diego Sector Chief Patrol Agent William Veal’s memo, April 24, 

2002, regarding Ethical Issues Involving Travel Vouchers. 

9. INS Commissioner Ziglar’s memorandum dated September 5, 

2002, Subject “Claiming Expenses for Official Travel.” 

10.Assistant Attorney General for Administration Stephen Colgate’s 

memo, September 1, 1998, regarding Policy Guidelines for 

Extended Travel Assignments. 

Office of the Inspector General

November 20,2001

MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN R. CHASE

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTERNAL AUDIT

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

-,l..

?

A

FROM:

AssrSTANT 

INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR INVESTIGATIONS

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECORDS

The Office of the Inspector General, Tucson Field Office, is currently

conducting a comprehensive review of allegations reported to the OIG

concerning possible voucher irregularities by Border Patrol Agents detailed to

Operation Safeguard at Douglas, Arizona. Our investigation will focus on fiscal

years ~~ CiDd 2.e&t.

The INS, Western Region, has identified and furnished the OIG with a list

of names of Border Patrol Agents assigned during this time period. We have

also been advised that the travel vouchers submitted by the agents are located

at the finance center in Dallas, Texas. In order to sufficiently determine the

scope of the issues involved it is necessary that a copy of these vouchers be

obtained an analyzed.

I am therefore requesting that INS furnish a copy of these vouchers and

all related receipts to the Office of the Inspector General. As you are aware,

this case is the subject of congressional scrutiny, therefore it is requested that

INS complete this request within thirty days of receiving this request.

Your cooperation and assistance is appreciated. If there are questions

your staff may contact SAC Roger M. Williams, DIG Operations or ASAC

Jospeh Cuffari, Tucson Field office.

]"~/O5/02 

08:31 ~'w "0'602 870 52-18 I g... '"v" L-VUJ.

8 -

Ie,) Uu.:,' uu, i.UL

lJUJ Ul~ lUI.;~UN~"" .lNV n~

.JUIV ..!VU..! ~ .~~

u.s. Department of stice

Office of t.~e Inspector General

"-

JlGsJiil!:ICI.. D.C 2OJ;o

May 28, 2002

OGC-O2-004

MEMORANDUM FOR THOMAS J. BONDURANT

ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR INVES2GAT ONS

-::::- 'J/ ~

FROM: $ARDL..SRI MCf1-

GENERAL COUNSEL

SUBJECT; Legal Opinion Regarding Amenities Offered

By Lod2in2 Providers to Border Patrol A~ents

'-'

You have requested a legal opinion regarding whether it was

appropriate for Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) to accept various amenities

offered by lodging providers while on extended travel away from their

home duty stations in the Douglas, Arizona area. As \V'e understand it,

tl1e BPAs at issue traveled under the lodging-plus per diem system. This

means their daily per diem rate was calculated "on the basis of the acroal

amount the traveler pays for lodging. plus an allowance for meals and

incidental expenses (M&IE). the total of which does not exceed the

applicable maximum per diem rate for the location concerned."

41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1. Under this method. the traveler collects the full

M&lE rate regardless of actual expenses.l If the traveler spends more'

than the mmmum authorized amount he bears that cost. If he spends

less, he may keep the difference.

The reimbursement claims at issue here were for $55.00 per day

for lodging (the maximum rate allowed) as well as the full M&IE rate.

The amenities accepted differed in type from complimentary meals, to

credits and vouchers which could be used toward the cost of meals or

groceries, to cash payments intended to cover the cost of meals or

groceries. You inquire whether the BPAs who accepted these amenities

1 ActUal e:x:pense reim burscment is pro,,-ided for under certain circumatances

not applicable here. ~ 41 C.F.R. § 301.11..300.
I u'; \1.,: oJ':

--~. '" -aQu,: OIU ;>':'10

I W"'.~,",L,"", vv..

8,-

~ UUJ/UU., r- .'-'oJ

~

There is a general prohibition on federal employees accepting gifts

given because of their official position. ~ generally 5 C.F.R. § .

2635.201-205. HoweverJ discounts and benefits offered to a broad class,

including a broad class of government employees arc excluded fram tile

definition of gift. lQ. at § 2635.203(b}(4).

As we understand it, all of the amenities at issue \vere offered

either to all guests or to all long-term guests of the involved

establishments. AccordinglYJ the gift prohibition is not Unplicated in

these cases.

One of the hotels at which the SPAs stayed charged the full $55

lodging rate but offered a free breakfast and happy hour to its guests.

Regulations promulgated by the General Services Admirlistrarion (GSA}

specifically address the question of complimentary meals provided by a

hotel! motel. The GSA regulations are written in question and answer

fom1at. The applicable provision states: "

If my agency authorizes per diem reimbUrsement, will it

reduce my M&IE allowance for a mea1(s) provided by a

common carrier or for a complimentary meaI(s) provided by a

hotel/motel? No. A meal provided by a common carrier or a.

complimentary meal provided by a hotel/motel does not

affect your per diem.

41 C.F.R. 301-11.17.2 Accordingly, the BPAs who stayed at this hotel

were free to accept the complimentary breakfast and happy hour without

taking any reductions in the per diem rate.

2 A memorandum a-om tile Finance Staff of the Justice Management Division to

employees of the Offices Boards and Divisions of the Department provides consistent

advice: -Must a. deducbon be made for meals on aj:rcraIt or complimenta y breakfasts

~t hotels? No COlnDIimentary meals provided to the traveler bY hotels or meals providcd

while on common carriers do not require reductions 1n MGI~.-

"--'

2
06/05,'02 08:32 VU-" '5'602 870 52.16 8 I ~"""'"""" \.I.a. '.4]OO.J/OO8 I. 'J..,

--

III. Credit Toward Meals Eaten at Hotel

"-'

One hotel frequented by BPAs provided a credit of $15 per day to

be offset agajnst money spent on meals eaten at the hotel. For example,

if a BPA spent $20 dollars per day on hotel meals over a 30 day period

for a total of $600, the hotel would subtract $450 ($15 x 30 days) from

his or her bill at the end of the month. Thi~ credit was applicable only to

that portion of the bill spent on meals, did not result in any cash

payments to BPAs, was not credited toward the lodging portion of the:

bill, and was applicable only to meals eaten during the current stay. A

BPA who did not eat his or her meals in the hotel got no benefit from the

credit.

At the time the credits at issue were given, the GSA regu1a.tions

provided as follows:

What must I do with promotional benefits or materials I

receive from a travel service provider? Any promotion2.l

benefits or material you receive from a private source in

connection with official travel are considered property of the

Goverrunent. You must: (a) Accept the benefits or material

on behalf of the Federal Government; and (b)' TuIn the

benefits or material over to your agency in accordance with

your agency's procedures established under 41 C.F.R. 101-

25.103.

',--

41 C.F.R. 301-53.1.3

Is there any instance when I may make personal use of

benefits furnished by a travel serVice provider? Yes, you may

use benefits (e.g., free meals, check-cashing privileges, or

memberships in executive clubs) only if: (a) the: Govemment

can not use the benefit;_(b) to receive the immediate benefit,

you do not forfeit a futUre benefit tlle Government could use;

and (c) the benefit can not be redeemed for cash value.

41 C.F.R. § 301-53-10.

3 The rule. was recently ch3l1ged to allow government travelers to make

personal use of promotional benefits earned on officia1 travel. The change in the rule

does not affect the matt=rs at issue here becaus~ it applie.s ocly to promotional benefits "-' used after December 28, 2001, the effe.ctive date of the change.

3
06/05/0_2_- !!_8:: 33 ~602 .670 .51~6 DOJ 01 G 1'U(';s.U~. ...IN' Ii"

'-'

~UU5/UUI$

"-

There are two possible ways of viewing the meal credit. both of

which would permit the employee to use the credit without reducing his

or her meal allowance.4 First, it could be categorized as the equivalent of

a complimentary meal the acceptance of which, as discussed above,

does not require a reduction in per diem. Second, it could be categorized

as promotional material. Because it meets the standards set forth in §

301-53-10 -the government could not use the credit, no future benefit

was forfeited, and it could not be redeemed for cash value -it falls into

the category of promotional materials an emplo}'ee may accept.

Accordingly, we believe that the BPAs were free to eat meals in the hotel

and apply the credit to the cost of those meals witilout reducing their per

diem rate.

IV. Supermarket CoUBons

,

Some of tbe BPAs rented units in an apartment complex for which

they were each charged $55.00 per day. In order to compete with the

benefits offered by the hotels roscussed above) the management of the

complex supplied the BPAs with coupons redeemable at a local

supermarket in amounts up to $10.00 [or each day of their stay

depending on the size of the unit in which they stayed. The management

paid face value for'the coupons, which came in denominations of $5.00,

$10.00, $20.00, and $50.00. When purchasing items at tile

supermaxket, the BPA could obtain no more than $4.99 in cash as

change no matter the denomination of the coupon submitted. Thcrc was

no limit on which items could be purchased using the coupons.

As with the amenities discussed above, we do not believe that the

issue here is whether the BPAs should have deducted the amount of the.

coupons from their lQdging costs. They paid tbe complex $55..00 per day,

whether or not they accepted or used the coupons. Rather, the issue is

whether the BPAs should have treated the coupons as promotional .

material to be turned over to the government and whether. if they did

not, they are liable to the government for the value of those coupons.s

4 We do not ~.e it would be proper to analyze the isst1e in terms of \vhether

the BPAs were required to reduce their claimed lodging costs because the credit was not

applied towards such costs. All BPAs who stayed at the hot~l paid th~ hotel $55.00 per

night. whether or not they took advantage of the credit by eating their meals in the

hotel.

, Unlike the meel credjt discussed above, we do not believe; the supcrmarkGt

coupons can be equated to a complimentary meal, paJ"ticUla.rly smce they apparently

were not limited to thc purchase of food items.

' ,..

4
/05/02 o,~: 33

1JU..I/U.LU

"5"802 670 5246 8 I c...""V"...J.-'-'VJ.

"-"

DOJ OIG TtTCSON ~~~ INV HQ """I."'\oA.I" ;.--"

"-

~OO8/008 , .vv

"'-'

As discussed above, promotional material is to be turned over to

the agency if: (1) the government can use the benefit; (2) a future benefit

the government could use WJ11 be forfeited and/or (3) the benefit can be

redee~ed for cash value. Although it is a close question, it appears that

the BP .A..S should have tUrned the coupons over to the INS as promotional

m.aterial belonging to the government. Unlike the meal credit discussed

above, these coupons were not tied to any particular stay at the

apartment complex and theoretically could have been used by the INS to

reduce the cost of sending travelers to the area. Moreover, although the

coupons did not have cash value, the BPAs could receive some cash

benefit from them by limiting the items they purchased and collecting the

$4.99 in change permitted by the: supermarket.

The regulations assume, however, tl'lat the agency has established

a procedure by which it will receive promotional materials from its

employees. 41 C.F.R. 301-53.1 (h). It does not appear that the INS

either provided the SPAs with any guidance about the use of the coupons

or made lalown to them any such procedures. Accordingly J we fault INS

management for failing to take control of the situation rather than the

individual BPAs who may have used the coupons during their stay in the

Douglas area.

Cash Rebates Intended to Cover the Cost of Food

v.

""-

Some of the SPAs stayed in a private home for which they were

charged $55.00 per day. To compete with the deals being offered by the

notels arid apartment complexes, the owner of the home gave each agent

who stayed in his properly a cash KrebateD of $8.00 per day, whi1e still

providing a r~ceipt for $55.00 in lodging costs. The owner explained he

intended the money to cover the cost of breakfast, which he, unlike the

larger hotels, did not provide his guests. In another variation of tlris

scenario, a real estate broker/property manager provided BPAs with .

lodging receipts for $55.00 a dP-y while only actually collecting $40.00

per day. The ,$15.00 was supposed to be the equivalent of the food

coupons being provided by the competing apartment complex.

We believe there is no doubt that the BPA's who received these

rebates should not have clajmed the full lodging allowance of $55.00 per

day because th~y did not pay $55.00 per day in lodging costs. The

regulations are clear that eIIlploye~s are to be reimbuTs~d for "actual

lodging cost not to exceed the. maximum rate for the [temporary duty]

location. 41 C.F.R. § 301-11.100. The regulations also provide that

"{a]U promotional materials (e.g. ...cash. ..) received by employees in

conjunction with official travel and based on the purchase of. ..services

arc propcrly corJ.:.ldcs.'cd. tIJ tI~ d.'-4C to ~h,; Qoycrn=~rl.'t g.(1.c;1 ~not. 'DC

retained by the employee.- 41 C.F.R. § 101-2S.103.2(a). Thus, the BPAs ~

5
UO/U;)/U;: u~:Jol """'-"""""'" 'atiu~ ti7U 5~"ij I '"""."""4.,",..~-"v.. lJUJ UJ.~ 1.LII,;~UN ."" J.~V l1~

W'~"_.vv" '-'

~UUIIUU~ I .VO

who stayed at these establishments and accepted the rebates were only

entitled to be reimbursed for the amount they actually paid the

establishments and could be required to repay the difference between

what they paid and what they were reimbursed based on their claims

from receipts.

'--'

We also believe, howevcr I that the INS shares the blame in this

instance. INS should have been aware that there were lodging providers

willing to provide lodging for less than the applicable maximum per diem

rate and should have acted accordingly. In this regard, we note .that the

regulations specifically pem1it an agency to prescribe a per diem rate

lower than the prescribed ma.,Qrnum w.hen it "can determine in advance

that lodging and! or meal costs will be lower than the per diem rate.-

41 C.F.R 301-11.200.

VI. Use of Govemment Credit Cards

You also inquired whether government employees on official travel

are required to use their government-iSsued credit cards to pay for the

travel expenses they incur. The applicable regulations provide as follows:

What is the required method of payment for official travel

expenses? You are required to use the Government

contractor~issued travel charge card for all official travel

expenses unless you have an exemption.

'...,

41 C.F.R. 301-51.1.

What official travel expeTj,ses and/ or classes of employees are

exempt from the mandatory use of the Government

contractor.issu~d trav~l charge card? The Administrator of

General Services exempts the following from the mandatory

use of the Government c.O:-1tractor-issued travel charge card:

(a) Expenses incurred at a ,'endor that does not accept the

Government contractor-issued travel chaIge card. ...

41 C.F.R. 301-51.2. These regulations were adopted pursuant to a 1998

law and were effective on May 1. 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 21.365 (2000).

Accordingly after May 1, 2000, to the extent thatemplo}yees were able to

pay with the Government credit card, they were required to do so.

~

6
06/05/02 08:34 I,JI..:.J' u.u 'a'602 670 5246 8 I "",",.~v~"", v...

---

DOJ OIG rcJc~9J;i.~~W '-' H.Q 

.- ~OO8/008

"-

\011. Sharing: a Room

Finally, you inquired regarding the rules on reimbursement when

two married employees shaIe lodging. The relevant regulations provide

as follows:

How does sharing a room with another person affect my

per diem reimbursement? Your reimbursement is limited to

one-half the double occupancy rate if the person sharing the

room is another. Government employee on official travel. If

the .person sharing the room is not a Government employee

on official travel. YOUI reimbursement is limited to the single

occupancy ra re.

41 C.F.R. § 301-11.13. There is no rule req~ring employees, married or

not, to share a room. If they choose to do so, however, reimbursement is

limited to one-h~f the double occupancy rate.

If you have any additional questions please contact Gail Robinson

at (202) 616-0644.

Joseph Cuffari

Tucson Field Office

cc:

"'-

'-"

7

ax:LUL~144001

.Nov 26 2002

U.S. Department or Qice

10:48 P.O2

Office of the Inspector General

KiJ.!hinglon. D C 20530

November 26, 2002

OGC-O2-007

MEMORANDUM FOR T.J. BONDURANT

ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR INVESTIGATIONS

;r / / t;~

." h ,;{ 7 ~./( L

FROM: .HOWARD L. SRIBNICK

GENERAL COUNSEL

SUBJECT: Legal Opinion Regarding Lodging Provided to

Border Patrol Agents by Fellow Border Patrol

Agents

You have requested an opinion regarding the legality of certain

lodging arrangements entered into by Border Patrol Agents (BPA's) who

were on extended travel away from their home stations in the Douglas,

Arizona area. As we understand it, there are two types of lodging

arrangements at issue. In the fIrst instance, two BPAs, on separate

occasions, rented rooms in the home of a fellow BPA who was

permanently stationed in the Douglas area. The evidence indicates the

renters and the owner had worked together previously and shared a

friendship.}

In the second case, tWo Supervisory Border Patrol Agents (SBPAs)

who were permanently stationed in the Douglas area, together with their

wives. purchased rental properties separate and apart from their primary

residences. They then rented these houses to BPAs agents who were

sent to the Douglas area on extended travel. None of the agents to whom

they rented were in their direct line of supervision. The renters were

recruited via word of mouth and the wives managed the properties.

For the reasons explained below, we have concluded that although

nothing prevented the traveling BPAs from renting rooms in a fellow

agent's home, the applicable regulations provide that the reimbursement

1 You explained that althoueh the homeowner is currently a supervisor. he did

not hold this title at the time he rented to his friends. Accordingly. there are no issues

regarding potential misuse of a supervisory position. .
DOJ/OIG Fax:2025144001 Nov 26 2002 10:49

for such an arrangement was limited to the actual additional expenses

incurred by the host. We have further concluded that the SBPAs were

free to let their rental properties to BPAs whom they did not supervise,

and that because separate rental properties were involved,

reimbursement was not limited t~ actual expenses incurred.2

Analysis

Federal travel regulations provide specific rules regarding the

allowable reimbursement for different types of lodging.

(a) Conventional lodgings. (Hotel/motel, boarding house, etc.

will be reimbursed the single occupancy rate.

(c) Lodging with friend(s) or relative(s) (with or without charge).

You may be reimbursed for additional costs your host incurs in

accommodating you only if you are able to substantiate the

costs and your agency determines them to be reasonable. You

will not be reimbursed the cost of comparable conventional

l.odging in the area or a flat "tokenD amount.

(d) Nonconventionallodging. You may be reimbursed the cost of

.other types of lodging when there are no conventiona1lodging

facilities in the area (e.g., in remote areas) or when conventional

facilities are in short supply because of an influx of attendees at

a special event (e.g., World's Fair or international sporting

event). Such lodging includes college dormitories or similar

facilities or rooms not offered commercially but made available

to the public by area residents in their homes.

41 C.F.R. § 301-11.12.

Under these regulationsJ it is clear that the BPAs who rented

rooms in their fellow BPA's home could be reimbursed for lodging

expenses only to the extent they could substantiate any additional costs

the homeowner incurred as a result of their stay. Moreover, this would

2 As we understand it, the SPEAs purchased their rental properties sometime

after the Border Patrol had begun sending BPAs to the Douglas area in large numbers.

Accordingly, there is no argument that the SPBAs had access to any special knowledge

as a result of their jobs or that they misused any such kno\\1edge. Similarly, that the

renters were not in the chain of command of their landlords eliminates issues about

whether the supervisors could have misused their positions to recruit or hold the

renters.

2
Nov 26 2002

.

t"aX:LUL~144UUl

8

10:49 P.O4

have been the case even if they and the homeowner had not shared a

friendship.

In numerous decisions interpreting the regulation, the Office of the

Comptroller General has made clear that "[r]egardless of the character of

the relationship between the employee and his host. ..claims involving

noncommercial lodgings should be supported by information. indicating

that the lodging charges are the result of expenses incurred by the party

providing the lodging." Matter of Clarence R. Foltz, 55 Compo Gen. 856

(1976); ~ ~ Matter of Peter Lalic, 68 Compo Gen. 329 (1989).

Accordingly, the BPAs who rented rooms in their colleague's home

could have legitimately ~laimed lodging reimbursement only to the extent

that they could show that their host incurred additional expenses by

putting them up. Absent such evidence, no lodging reimbursement was

appropriate.

BPAs who stayed in actual rental properties owned by other Border

Patrol employees were not subject to this limitation. Under the

regulations and the Comptroller General decisions interpreting them, the

crucial distinction is whether the property that was rented can properly

be labeled commercial in nature. Separate units that are not part of the

owner's home and that would be available to the general public for rent

are considered commercial in nature. Moreover, Ilcommercial type

accommodations do not automatically turn into noncommercial

accommodations under the regulations merely because the employee

traveler knows the lodging operator, or the operator is a friend or even a

relative." Matter of John T. Bailey, 8-230,472, 1989 WL 240521.

Accordingly J the BPAs who rented homes from the two SBPAs

would have been entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the rental,

assuming the amount charged was consistent with market rates and did

not exceed the maximum rate authorized for the area.

cc: Roger Williams

Joseph Cuffari

3

P.02

U.s. Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Office of Internal Audit

/

pJ-t..

J1IY~'t

P,tl.t

I2t

425 I S/ree/ i\'W

Iflashing/on. DC 20536

DEL; 122002

MEMORANDUM FOR T. J. BONDURANT

ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR INVESTIGATIONS

() OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

i£~~~::::::.::::::. FROM: r-- Sue Armstrong

Assistant Director

Internal Investigations Branch

Office of Inspector General Case No. 0205111

Re: UNKNOWN

SUBJECT:

Please find attached documentation of the resolution of the subject case. We have closed the

case and will take no further action on it.

If you have any questions regarding this case, please contact me at (202) 514-5765.

Att.
It~S alA

8

IB P.0.3

u.s. Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Sen/ice

HQFIN 80/1

...251 Slrtt!l NJV

Jr'ashi!!.']lolI DC }1}5.~6

MEMORANDUM FOR SUE E. AR!'v1STRONG

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

OFFrCE OF INTERNAL AUDIT ".

" /"". I (c' ""'7~" It (.1'..-'

THROUGH: Judy R. Hamson ..A- .cL, t. i. ~,"~

Assistant CommissiU;

Office of Financial Mana~ement

17 FROM: Tommy J. Dodson

Director

Dallas Fin..mce Center, Office ofF' Management

SUBJECT: Office of Internal Audit (OIA) Case NQ. 02XO31 0 I

The Office of Financial Management (OFM), Dallas F'inance Center (DFC) has reviewed

the inforn1ation referenced in OIA Case No. 02X031 01 that reJated to an incorrect use of

per diem rates as reported hy the Office nt"lnspector General as a result of an audit of travel

vouchers.

The OFM DFC detected the errors in April 2001, and corrective measures were taken by

infonning travel payment staff that applicable per diem rates are based on the ordered point of

travel ,;!D.Q the lodging location at that time. Additionally. the office that prepared the travel

authorizations was contacted, and the requirements of the f"cderal Travel Regulation (FTR) wcrc

discussed in detail.

The DFC has provided txten$iv~ training to bett~r educate the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS) staff of the FTR requirements. The General Services

Administration, 'ho is the authoritative source for FTR training, conducted on-site training for

DFC Pennanent Changc of Station :)taffin April 2002. Additional Temporary Duty training \,'v'ill

be given to DFC scaff in October 2002. which will be conducced by a tOnt1er instructor of travel

at the Community Collegc of the Air rorce.
INS OIA lIE

8

P.04

Memorandwn for Sue E. Annstrong Page 2

Subject: Office of Internal Audit (OIA) Case No. 02XO31 0 1

The OFM also provided extensive training on travel v'oucher preparation at the INS

Nationa11~ravel Management Conference in June 2002. Managers from offices throughout the

INS Vv'ho attended the conference received specific instruction on how to prepare proper travel

vouchers. Implementation of the Federal Financial Management System (FFMS) on

October 1, 2002, is expected to increase system and payment efficiencies. The INS will also

implement an improved Travel Manager system which will provide additional controls to ensure

claims submittcd by travelers are accurate, and in compliance with the FTR.

The DFC staff had less than one year of experience in travel reimbursements during the

time period in which the FY1999 and FY2000 vouchers v.°ere processed and the errors occurred.

The quality of audits has increased as a. result of experience gained by the payment staff.

refinement of payment practices and controls, 3l1d continued emphasis on training.

The DFC will continue reviewing the exception items referenced and \A.ill work closely

with GSA to detennine if collection of overpayments is required. Most of the documentation

supporting the claims has been sent to the archives for storage. Retrieval of archived

documentation and resources required to research and cvaluate each item will incur some

administrative costs. Because the amount of errors in question is immaterial, and the analysis of

each overpayment is quite complex. a cost benefit analysis indicates collection of the amounts

due would not benefit the INS.

The revised processing procedures, education, and increased expe11ise of the DFC staff,

coupled with the future deployment of Tra\'el Manager and FFMS, provides reasonable

assurance future travel voucher discrepancics will be minimizcd.

If you ha"'e any questions, p1ea.~e contact me at 214-915-6111.

TOTAL P.04
:;::.~:~:i~':~~:t.

ili;~'~.I!i-::!

i'~;"~~~iifp:!':

IT.S. Department o.etice

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Office of Internal Audit

425 I ~'tr£'£'1 NIl'

IVashillgtol,. DC ::0536

August 7, 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR T.J. BONDURANT

ASSIST ANT INSPECTOR GENERAL

FOR INVESTIGATIONS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FROM: Sue E. Amlstrong /1'1'./t-y~ 1

Assistant Director vy / U /

Office of Internal Audit

Office of Internal Audit (OIA) Case No. 02XO310I1

Office of Insgector General (OIG) Case No. 200200511lM

SUBJECT:

This is in response to your memorandum of May 15, 2002, regarding the abovereferenced case. Attached please find a copy of our referral to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service's Office of Financial Management, which provides our determination in

this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 307-5885.

Attachment
u.s. Department of ~ce .

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Office of Internal Audit

425 J Street NW

IVashington, DC 20536

August 7, 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR JUDY R. HARRISON

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

OFFICE OF FINANCIAL MANGEMENT

FROM: Sue E. Armstrong

Assistant Director

Office of Internal

SUBJECT: Office of Internal Audit (OIA) Case No. 02XO31 0 I

The attached materials were received from the Office of Inspector General (GIG). They.are 

the result of an audit of travel vouchers perfonned by the GIG in connection with an

in\'estigation related to reimburscmcnt claims filed by employees on detail to the Tucson Sector.

The OIG audited vouchers filed in FY 1999 and FY 2000. As a byproduct of the audit, the OIG

prepared the attached report, and states that it appears that the Dallas Finance Center made errors

in processing the vouchers, in particular, paying incorrect lodging and meals and incidental

expenses rates. The OIG states it appears that the errors resulted in $16,430.67 being paid

improperly to employees. This matter is being forwarded to your for your review, consideration

of appropriate corrective action if you deem it warranted, and response back to this office.

The OIG recommended an audit of procedures in place at the Dallas Finance Center for

processing vouchers. We are also interested in your response regarding seeking repayment from

employees who were improperly reimbursed, if you detemline ihat is the case. Please advise us

in writing no later than 60 days from the date of this referral as to your progress in addressing

these findings. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at

7-5885.

Attachment
.

Office of the Inspector General

fIlI,hingl,'n. DC. 205.~O

May 15, 2002

MEMORANDUM

TO: John Chase, Director

Immigration & Naturalization Service

Office of Internal Audit

FROM Thomas J. JFor Investigations

UZ;(t~/L)1

SUBJECT: DIG Complaint 2002005111-M

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has been conducted an investigation in

Southern Arizona as it relates to the lodging of Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) detailed in

support of Operation Safeguard. I believe that you are aware that our investigation

involved an audit of travel vouchers submitted by detailed BPAs for a two- year period.

The covered period was FY 1999 and FY 2000.

GIG Auditor Herman Smeenk has now completed this audit and as a byproduct he

produced a repor1 that detailed errors on a number of travel vouchers paid totaling

$16,430.67 in overcharges to the INS. I have enclosed a copy of this repor1 for your

review as well as copies of the source documents that serve as the basis for our

complaint.

It is our understanding that the Travel Section of the INS Finance Center in Dallas,

Texas is responsible for the review of travel vouchers prior to payment being authorized.

We believe that your office should consider an audit of this process to determine if there

is a systemic weakness that requires corrective action.

This matter is being referred to your office as a management issue. Please let me know

within sixty days of your response to this matter.

As always, your cooperation in this matter of mutual interest is appreciated.
DIG -INVESTIGATIONS DIV~N -IDMS OIG: 

TC-412-200200S111-M

Received By: Williams, Roger M Date Received: 05/15/2002 How Received: I

SSNO:

D.O.B. :

Alien Number:

F. B. I. No.:B.O.P. 

No.:

D/L STATE:

No.:

/ /

SUBJECT: UNK INS PERSONNEL,

Title: ADMIN Pay Plan: -/

Component: INS EOD Date: / /

Misc:

Home: , ,

Phone: --ZIP:Work: 

DALLAS FINANCE CENTER TRAVEL SECTION, DALLAS, TXPhone: 

--ZIP:

Judicial Action: Administrative Action:

SSNO:

D.O.B. :

Alien Number:

F. B. I. No.:

B.O.P. No. ~

OIL STATE:

No.:

/ /

COMPLAINANT: SMEENK, HERMAN

Title: ACCT Pay Plan: -/

Component: OIG EOD Date: / /

Misc:

Home: , ,

Phone: --ZIP:

Work: OIG HQ, INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION, WASHINGTON, DC

Phone: 202-616-0650 ZIP:

Contact: Confidential: N Revealed: Authority:

ALLEGATIONS: Offense: 412 -Job Performance Failure

Occurrence Date: ONGOING Time: UNKNOWN City: DALLAS, State: TX

Details:

The OIG initiated an investigation concerning possible travel voucher fraud in

connection with the unauthorized acceptance of amenities in the form of cash

credits, meal allowances, grocery foo coupons, that were offered by hotels in

Southern Arizona that were competing for business to house Border Patrol Agents in

support of Operation Safeguard.

In that regard, an audit of travel vouchers submitted, was conducted (OIG

2001002553-I Gadsden Hotel, et al), for a two year period covering FY 99 and 2000

As a byproduct of this OIG investigation, this audit found what may be a systemic

problem at the INS Fiance Center, Travel Section, with the accurate review of

travel vouchers prior to payment thus resulting in overpayments to BPAs This

audit discovered multiple errors for this two year period that totaled over

$16,000.00.

DISPOSITION DATA: Office: TC Date: 05/15/2002

Referred To Agency: INS/OIA

Fee Case: N

Other Number:

Remarks:

Disposition: 

M Approval: RMW

Component: INS

Civil Rights: N Priority: N

Consolidated Case Number:

Relates to DIG 2001002553, Gadsden Hotel, et al.

Memo from AIG/I to Director Chase requesting consideration of OIA Audit of travel

section at INS Finance Center, Dallas, Tx. and response within 60 days.

I

.I

I

,"\.

~l

0:,)

UJ

I:J

.

8 ..

u.s. Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Office of Internal Audit

ORIG:MR. 

BOHLINGER

MEMORANDUM FOR GEORGE H. BOHLINGER III

EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER

MANAGEMENT

MICHAEL A. PEARSON

EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER

FROM:

Office of lntemal Audit

SUBJECT: Procedural Reform Recommendation -Lodging During Detail Assigrunents

The purpose of this mcmorandum is to provide information regarding findings in

several investigations of allegations of employee misconduct related to lodging arrangements

and claims for reimbursement. The allegations \\-'ere lodged primarily in areas in which there are

a large num her of detailed employees, such as at the Service's training academics or in long

tenn, large scale enforcement operations. These findings have ethical and misconduct

implications for individual employees, and highlighr the agency's obligation [0 disseminate

information to detailecs.and ptm1anent staff in the locarion of the detail, in a manner that

protects cmployees from inadvertenrly bccoming involved in situations thal represent violations.

It is recommended that [his intonnation be rcviewcd with an eyc roward correcting systemic

weaknesse~.

The infonnation presented below is based upon prior and current investigations by the

Office of Internal Audit (OIA) and thc Office of Inspector General (OIG) into situations

described below. Undcr each allegation is a discussion of the potential violation or ethical

consideration.
I-'.~~

Subject: Proccdural Ref 01 ~ecommendation Page 2

Service employees coming to a detail assignment were put in contact with by

other employees or learned of by word of mouth, local property maoagcment

companies which provided lodging at a lower rate than tbe allo,,'able daily

lodging ~te, and were issued receipts reflecting tbe full allowable amount They

then vouchered tbe full aUowable daily )odgiog rate 2nd were rcimbursed.

'This scenario, in which employees were issued a receipt which did not accurately reflect the

amount they paid for lodging is 3 clear violation, which can subjec( ilie employee to crimina]

penalties (18 Uni(ed States Code 287, False, Fictitious or Fraudulent Claims), or disciplinary or

adverse action. Employees are authorized (0 claim up to the allotted lodging amount in a

pal1icular location. If they are not charged rhe full amount. they are not,entitled [0 claim it.

Scn'ice employees coming to .1. detail assignment were put in contact with by

other employees or learned of by word of mouth, a local commercial '""

f:stablishment or property management company which provided lodging at the , "'-

full aUowable daily lodging rate, but were given a "rebate" eacb day. These 1 ~

rebates took various forms depending upon the location: vouchen usable at ("",' ,..':;1.'

hotel dining, bar Bnd barber facilities; vouchers usable at local grocery 5tores~ fj'~.,~'?

cash; and also a certain dollar amount per day that an employee could charge t~ ~'::.

their room for food aDd iDcidentals at the hotel. The rebate amount was not '-".-'"

included in or deducted from the lodging rate in any of these sitdstions.

(n these scenarios, the rebate or credit falls into the category of promotional materia! received in

conjunction with official travel from a commercial activity. This is not the equivalent of a hotel

offering a continental breakfast or happy hour to all guests. built into the lodging rate, for which

a federal traveler would not have to account. Title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Section 101-25.;03-2 states that. "All promotional rl1aterials, (e.g., bonus flights, reduced farc

coupons, cash, mer(:handise. gifts. credits toward future free or reduced costs of services or

goods. etc.) rcceivcd by employees in conjunction with official travel and based or. the purchase

ofa ticket or other services (e.g., car rental) are properly considered to be due the goverrunent

and may not be retained by the employee. The Comptroller General ofthc United states has

stated that employees are obligated to account t~r any gift. gratuity or benefit received from

private sources incident to the performance of official duties (see Compo Gen. Decision B199656. July 15, 1981 ).. When an employee receives promotional material, the employee shall

accept the material on behalf of the United States and relinquish it to an appropriate agency.

official." If an employee uses a coupon or credit provided by a lodging establislunent, they

should adjust the Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) claimed on their voucher accordingly

(e.g., subtract the amount of the credit or value of the coupon per day from their M&IE claim).

Another alternative would be for managcm.nt to llegotiate a favorable market ratc for lodging

with [he providers. and disallow gratuities up front. It is noted that the (NS is not currently in

compliance with 41 CFR 101-25.103-1, which states that federal agencies in a position to r~ceive

promotional matcrials shall es[ablish internal procedures for the receipt and disposition ofsamc.
Subject: Proccdwal Rer8Recomrncndation

Service employees rented rooms in private r('~ideDce5 loc:ated for them by

SPOUSe5 of permanent academy or Sector employees. Additionally, some oftbe

rental properties were owned by Service employees. In some cases, employees

were charged the fuU allowablc daily lodging rate. in others. they were cha.rged

Ie!s than the full daily rate, but were issued a receipt of the full rate amounL

The spouses of pennanent academy staff operated as "relocation" entities and

provided lodging for incoming detail instructors. Some of tbt spouses were

o~rating as an incorporated busin~s entity, others were not and were simply

issuing monthly lodging rectipfs under a fictitious business n~me. Somt of the

spouses paid a "rmders fee" to staff who ronvarded names or potential detailce

renters to them.

.

While there is no prohibition agajnst owning a rental property and renting to other employees (or

through a rental company), some factors should be consid~redThe first scenario, above, again represents a clear violation in the fonn of a false claim if the

employee submitS a voucher claiming the full allowable lodging ~te. The issue of employee or

spousal employment in the real est4.te business, and either locating or providing rental properties

to other employees who come to the area on an official detail, has several ethical-implications. If

the rental business was not an ongoing concern before the details started, the employee could be

construed to be profiting from knowledge related to their official duties (e.g., the number and

identity of incoming det4.ilees), a possible conflict of interest under 18 USC 208, prchibition

against participating in matters affecting an employee's own financial interests (See also, 5 CFR

Pan"2635, Use of Nonpuhlic Information)- Even if the rental business is ma11aged by the spouse,

the spou...al relationship still cquates it with an employee's own financial interests.

Evidence obtained in these investigations disclosed that employees who claimed there was an

"3ffi1S length" relationship with their spouse's business in that the business wa.~ in the spouse's

name only, actually engaged in showing properties to othcr employees. and served as

intermediaries for messages about properties and rcntal payments. This confirmed that the

situation reflected upon their own financial interests.

There may also be an inappropriate supervisor/subordinate relationship if a permanent

supervisory employee (or spouse) is engaging in a financial transaction with someone under their

supervision. The "finders fee" is inappropriately offered and accepted. Employees should not be

profiting from infonnation obtained by virtue of their official positions.

Service employees rented rooms in the private residences of permanent

employees of a detail location, and were charged and issued a receipt for the full

daily lodging rate, which they then claimed for reimbursement on a voucher.

Again. there is no prohibition against owning rt:ntal property and rcnting to othcr employees.

ho"'"ever. the Federal Travel Regulations speak to thl' issue of rentals in onc's primary residence.

TOTAL P.10

P.04.

US Department of JulGl:r

Immigration and Natur~tion Sel'\'ict'

-H9FfN 80/9 aUv~ ~// A (}../

J25 1.)i"~CI. N£J' /_. -~~"/A/~-

'J'a.~hmg(l)n. DC 2fj536

" ',-',

..0_":"1..

MEMORt\NDLTM FOR ALL INS EMPLOYEES

FROM: JudyR. HarriSO

Assistant Conunis ~~ 1 ner /l."'J:~~.A./I~;'--'- 

Office of Financi anag em

SUBJECT:

This is the eighteenth in a series of frequently asked question messages from the Office of

Financial Management concerning policy for travel. The topic of this memorandum is Lodging

Dllring Temporary Duty Travel (TDY). If you have nlrther questions, please contact Tamara

Echols at (202) 307-4617 or Kurt Snydcr at (202) 616-9939.

Please note that the infonnation contained in these messages does not supersede specific

language in the Immigration and Naturalization Service's bargaining unit contracts. Rather. the

provisions of these messages should be understood and applied in a manner consistent with the

requirements of the applicable labor agreement, if any.

General Rules

I. QUESTION: What types of accommodations should I obtain while on official TDY?

ANSWER: Employees are encouraged to stay in conventional lodging facilities~ such as

commercial hotels, motels and lodges, that have been approved by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) as "approved accommodations." For a list ofFEMA approved

hotels~ you may visit \\"\\-w.Dolicyworks.Qov/rravel or make your reservations tillough your

local Travel Management Center (TMC). Reference: Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)

Section 301-11.11
P.OS

Page 2

Memorandum for All Em~ees 8

Subject: Frequently Asked Questions about Temporal)' Duty Travcl #18

2. QUESTION: What if! choose to stay with a fricnd or relative?

ANSWER: Employees are permitted to stay with friends or relatives while on TOY.

However, employees who rent from a place that is not commercially available to the public

\Nill not be reimburscd the cost of comparable conventional lodging in the area or 3. flat

"token" amount. Instead, reimbursement will be limited to additional costs your host incurs

in accommodating you, (e.g., the rental ofa cot or bed). The extra costs paid to the friend or

relative for such items may be reimbursed to the employee but must be substantiated with

proof~ such as a bill or statement. Reference: FTR Section 301-11.12

If an employee stays in a room or house of an individual who is in the business of renting

rooms to the public, then the employee renting the accommodations may be reimbursed for

the rental costs. The rental cost should not exceed the amount charged to the general public

and the maximum per diem rate allo\\"ed for that location.

3. QUESTION: What if the propert)' o~er or the property management offer or agrec to

provide a receipt for a higher amount than the amount actually paid?

ANSWER: An employee may not submit a claim that does not accurately reflect the alnount

paid for lodging. Submitting a claim for more than the amount actually incurred is a

violation of the US Code (18 United States Code 287, False, Fictitious or Fraudulent Claims)

and can subject the employee to criminal penalties, or disciplinary or ad"erse action.

Employees are authorized to claim up to the allotted lodging amount in a particular location.

If the employee is not charged the maximum lodging per diem amount, the employee is not

entitled to claim it. Employees should ensure that the lodging receipt reflects the actual costs

incurred, net of any cash rebates or similar credits.

4. QUESTION: What should I do with vouchers or credits that I receive \J,.'hile sta)ring at a

conunerciallodging facility?

ANSWER: Pursuant to Section 1116 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002, the Gcneral Services Administration has issued the following regulation: Any

promotional benefits or materials received from a travcl service provider (i.e., frequent flyer

miles, upgrades. or access to carrier clubs or facilities, and coupons for discounted meals or

services provided by the hotel) in connection \'v"ith official travel may bc rctained for personal

use, if such items are obtained under the same conditions as thosc offered to the general

public and at no additional cost to the Government. Reference: FiR 30J-10,1n1E'ndmenl

104
.

Date: 04/23/2002 11 :01 AM

Sender: INS Broadcast

To: Karina Anchieta; Barbara Anderson; Diana L Anderson; George E Anderson; Peder A

Anderson: Robert Anderson; Ross S Anderson; Ross TDY Anderson; Stuart Anderson: Kurt

0 Andolsun; Sharon Andrade; Thomas Andreotta; Brian Andrews; Chonlatit Andrews; Jim R

Andrus; John J Andrzejewski; Jackie Angelelli; Jerald Angell; Franca B Angelucci; Karen S

Angelucci: Reemployed Annuitants; Jacob A Antoninis; Gabriel Anwar: Vicki L Apodaca;

Ermin Apolinario; Myriam Aponte; Gregory J Archambeault; Carlos W Archuleta: Karlee

Arey; Jeannette C Armel!; Daniel D Armendariz; Rose-Marie Armstrong; Sue E Armstrong:

Jill Arndt; Kurt R Arneson; Paul Arnold; Norma A Arocho; Ismael Arreola: Mario Arreola;

Susan K Arroyo; James K Arthur; Paul S Arthur; Larry G Arthurs; Octavio Arvizu; Kwabena

Asamoah; Weekly Report ASC; Robert A Aserkoff; Jennifer L Ash; Earl L Ashton

Priority: Normal

Subiect:FreQuently Asked Questions #18-LodQinQ Durino Temporav Duty

Forwarded on behalf of: Office of Financial Management

*.* *****.*ww ** *

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL INS EMPLOYEES

Judy R. Harrison

Assistant Commissioner

Office of Financial Management

FRO/..,:

SUBJECT: Frequently Asked Questions #la-Lodging During Temporary

Duty Travel

This is the eighteenth in a s~ries of frequently asked question

messages from the Office of Financial Management concerning policy

for travel. The top~c of this memorandum is Lodging During Temporary

Duty Travel (TDY). If you have further questions. plea2e contact

Tamara Echols at (202) 307-4617 or Kurt Snyder at (202) 616-9939.

Please note that the information contained in these messages does not

supersede specific language in the Immigration and l1aturalization

Service's bargaining unit contracts. Rather, the provisions of these

messages should be understood and applied in a manner consistent with

the requirements of the applicable labor agreement, if any.

General Rules

QUESTION: What types of accommodations should I obtain while

on official TD'l?

1.

AlJSWER: Employees are encouraged to stay in con',entional lodging

facilities, such as commercial hotels, motels and lodges,

thac have been approved by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) a~ ~Iapproved accommodations." For a list of

FEMA approved hotels, you may visic ~~.policyworks.gov/travel

or make your reservations ~hrough your local Travel Managemenc

Center (TMC). Reference:

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Section 301-11.11

2. QUESTION: What if I choose to stay with a friend or relative?

ANSWER: Employees are permitted to stay with friends or relatives

while on TDY. However, employees who ren~ from a place tha~

is not commercially available to the public will not be

reimbursed the cos~ of comparable conventional lodging in

che area or a flat. "coken" amount.. Instead. reimbursement
will be limiced co additional costs your host incurs in

accommoda~ing you, (e.g., the rental of a cot or bed).

The extra coete paid to the friend or relative for such

items may be reimbursed to the employee but must be

substanciated with proof, ~uch as a bill or s~a~ement.

Reference: FTR Section 301-11.12

If an employee stays in a room or house of an individual

who is in the bu!iness of renting rooms to the public,

then the employee renting the accommodations may be

reimbursed for the rental costs. The rental cost should

not exceed the amoun~ charged to the general public and

the maximum per diem rate allowed for that location.

3. QUESTIO}1: tihat if the property owner or the property management

offer or agree to provide a receipt for a higher

amount than the amount ac~ually paid?

~.NSWER : An employee may not submit a claim that does not accurately

reflect the amount paid for lodging. Submitting a claim for

more than the amount actually incurred is a violation of the

US Code (18 United States Code 257, False, Fictitious or

Fraudulent Claims) and can subject the employee to criminal

penalties, or disciplinary or adverse action. Employees are

authorized to claim up to the allotted lodging amount in a

parcicular location. If the employee is not charged the

maximum lodging per diem amount, the employee is not

entitled to claim it. Employees should ensure that the

lodging receipt reflects the actual costs incurred. net of

any cash rebates or similar credits.

QUESTION:

4. Wha~ should I do with vouchers or credits that I

receive while s~ayin9 at a commercial lodging facility?

~~SWER: Pursuan~ to Section 1116 of ~he National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the General services Administration

has issued the following regulation: Any promo~ional benefits

or ma~erials recei'.,ed from a ~ravel ser".rice provider

(i.e., frequent flyer m~les, upgrades. or access to carrier

clubs orfacilities, and coupo~s for discounted meals or

services provided by the hotel) in connection wi~h official

travel may be retained for personal use, if such items are

obtained under the same conditions as ~hose offered to the

general public and at no addition~l cost to the Government.

Reference: FTR 301.10 Amendment 104

It~S

8 u.s. Dt:partment of eJustice

Immigration and Natucalizarion Service

U.S. Border Patrol

TCA 100/5.7-C

Office of the Chief Patrol Agent 1970 \\-: Ajo v.'ay

Tuc,s'oll. ,\rl:OIlQ 8.~713

(520) 670-6871

April 25, 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR GUST A VO DE LA VINA

CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL

W ASHlNGTO,.,C ~ /

FROM: David V. Aguilar I)(J~~~~~;/

Chief Patrol Agent

Tucson Sector

SUBJECT: Local Actions Taken on Allegations

The following informa[ion is being forwarded as a means of updating your office on

certain specific actions taken by Tuc~on Sector on the allegations of impropriety on [he part of

Agents detailed into the Tucson Sector. The matter is cun-ently being investigated by the Office

of Inspector General and the INS Office of Internal Audil and was discussed by Office of

Internal Audit Director John Chase at the Chief Patrol Agent breakout session on April 1. 6th.

The allegations of improprieties related to housjI)g rentals by Border Patrol Agents

detailed into the Douglas Station were first received on Ma)' 8, 2001 by APAIC Nanna King.

AP Arc King notified the Office of Inspector Genera! and Tucson Sector Headquarters by way of

memorandum on the same day.

Dou~las Station

All incoming details are addressed by Supervisory Border Patrol Agenr personnel at the time of

their am vul and scheduling into the station rotations. Commencing with [he May 20, 2001 derail

rotation. [hc issue of improprieties relating to housing/rcn[als has been addressed. It has been

made clear that an employee should not submit a claim that does not accurately reflect the

amount paid for lodging. This procedure has been followed through the last detail roration into

the Douglas Station that ended on April 21,2002.
(-~~~~ J.J.."i~ lrl~ IJ1H 11%:1

MEMORANDUM T~ST A Va DE LA VINA, CHJEF

Subject: Local Act1ons'Taken on Allegations

Page 2

Naco Station

The Naco Station received 10 detailers commencing February 11, 2001. The Naco Station has

included the same housing/rental specific briefing and cautions since November 8,2001. Naco

continued this type of briefing through the last rotation that occuTTed on March 23, 2002.

Casa Grande -Tucson -A io Stations

The Casa Grande, Tucson, and Ajo Stations arc currently receiving detailers as an c.lllgmentation

to their West Desert operations. The detailers all receive the same type of briefing relative to

housing/rental concerns.

U.S. Department of Justice

ImmigraUQD. and NaturaEzaticm S~cc

U. S.. Bordcr Patrol

Office of the Chiet"Patrol Agent

San Diego Sector

SDC 50/1

.1411 Boswd &(11

Ch IIl4 r £J&I, Ca1 Vontf4 91' 11- ~ J 1.9

Apn124. 2002

MEMORANDUM FOR SECTO~ STAFF

P ATRQL AGENTS m CIIARGE, .

.SuPERVISORY SPEQAL A"GENTS

~ RCEMEN T D EP AR TMENT HEADS ALL ~GENTS .

SAN DIEGO SECTOR

"Willimn T.V eal ~~~~ .? 4"

ChiefPatrolAg~

FROM:

STjB~.cT: Ethical Issues ~1viru!: Travel V o~~

~ Sm"i~Wrec6ntlye~cri~ced.a.m~m~ut..in~intravelvoQc~problem,g.

ranging fl;om simple mistakes to .~ vjolations to mud WRn'3Ilting c:rimiDaI prosecution... Smcc

tho San Diego SectoI ft'CqueDtly det.a11s employees to othcr Sectors and to tho' Academi~~ all .

employees arc ~_t:Jed oftbe foDowing pr'o~ns oftbe Fed~ Tra~ RcgulatiOns regarding

rcimburscmcnt fur lodging in particular.

Reimbcrs~ for lodging Inllst be based on acttIa1 oost. Rece~ are required for

reiIDbursem~ of an Iodgicg expenses~ and receipts must ~ely reflect the amount actually

paid for IodgiDg cost.!. It is lmacce'S'table tosubmit 8. cWm using a receipt which reflects a higoJ1er.

atI1Ount ~ actlJa1ly paid for lodging. The cost ofIodgin,g, excluding tax, may be reimbursed ifit

do~ DOt ~ceed ~ maxim1IIIllodgiDg amount prescnW by the applicable per diem rate.

Employees are encowaged to pres= hotcts '\tlith t4x exempt fopm whoncver posS111le; however,

taxes cnlodging may be re.iII1bursed a:s a miscellaneous expense. .

-'3SNnoJ ~1:J3S :.JS Wt:i6S:'t't 2002"22"1.:)0 -2. d _26, .ON
USE! P AJD sT8~ 520SS?Sr;z0

DSI22/.~2

-

.lQ:~J FAX ~O251'3'7a B~QR.--

..SAN DIEGO

.

~OOZ/.G°.J

US Dtp:lTtntent /)f Justice

Isnmigrarion ~nd Naturali'Zation S~rvice

.;

HQfIN 80/9 .

\'.v"bt!t..,~'£'f /J) d4 dnV

41J' ! Sl,~ct. H1Y /

fYot/riJlgiaw: DC 1.05J6' .

, I. '

..' ~r; .' -. D2 

FRO!v~: J w:ty R.

MEMORANDUM FOR ALL INS EMPLOYEES .

.K."'1kAA~~

, .

...~ J...'", .

Pleastmt~ tQa~ the infOm12.tion contained in these ntessages does not suFersed~ specific

l~age ia the LTlruigratiol1 and Naturalization Serv~e's bargaining unit contnctS. Rather', the

provisions ofthcose rnessage.s ~ould be -understood and applied in a manner consls,tent with the .

requircments of th~ applicable ItJ.bor agrec~ent. i:an,Y.

~neral &1!!§ .

1. QYESnON: What types of accotnmodatiocs should r obtain ~hile on official TDY? "

.

ANSWER; Employees aIe encoun!.ged to stay in cc.Ilventionallodging facilities, such. as

cornmcrcial hotels, motels an~ lodges, that have been approvcd by the Fcdcral Emergcncy

Managf"ment Agency (FEMA) as "approved "acCDtnmOdations." Fot' a list of FEMA "approved'

hotels~ you may vigjt ~Y'Jf1Y.t)plicvworks.J!O"/tra~l or make your reservations tMQUgh your

local Tt-aYel Ma.nageme~t Ccntor (TM.c)- ~fetence; Federal Travel Re,g-ulation (FT!?)

0" Secrion SOl-IJ.J!

I3S1-1m:) ?:JO1:)3S :)GS Wd00:2t 2002'22"1:>0 O'..J ~)'nl.l

-+ HY INV
U S B P AJO S~~ 5203S?S6Z0

-o. ~-~~2~~~L_IO:4J PAL 2025143(78 c BOSbR.

..SAN J>I~GO o. '~~D3/0Ca

..

Pagel

, .

Nlt'Cllorandum for All Employees

Subjet:t: Frcqucntly Asked QuestiOI1S abo.ut'Temporary nut.>, Travel #1 &

-==

~

.

l3SI-Jm:) ?JOl:)]S :)GS Wd1~:21 Z00Z'22'l:x) _L"d 26.i."ON

li.S. DcpartPlt'nt 01" JUstit'e

lmmlgro\ion and NIi"lreliution Service

HQFI\I 80/9

JJ51,"I"'~I\J!'

:/.Q:llj))~jO'1 ()C" 211336 ()r!i;;~ vrlhc (;c.nln,i:;"ioner

SEP 052002

MEMOR ANDUM fUR ALL E.MPLn'l'[CS

fROM: J1meSW.z.ig~11 -~ ,~-Q .

Con1missiont:r ~ D

Imn1igrdlil.ll' and NaI ~11Z3tion Sf?rvirr

.Q!imirl\!. Fxn~~3_t9r Official Traw SUDJ ELf:

~

I Jr.now rlll1t most IN~ employees Rr~ 11\lI\cst and la\v abiding wlJ~1l filin: their travel

youchers HlIwevcf. plcasc Icnow thaI w~ iT\It:lld to idcntify those inuivinll!.ls who file fra.udulc-111

claims and llr1\1 with thcm 3.ppropriately

.

MEMORANDUM September 1, 1998

TO: Heads of Department Components

FROM:

/s/

Stephen R. Colgate

Assistant Attorney General

for Administration

Revised Policy Guidelines for Authorizing and

Administering Extended Travel Assignments

SUBJECT:

Attached are policy guidelines for autho~izing and administering

extended travel assignments. Since my issuance of guidance on

March 3, 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was enacted,

rendering as non-taxable, extended travel assignments of the

Department's investigators, prosecutors, and support personnel.

Extended assignments for other program or administrative purposes

may still be taxable under the Internal Revenue Code. The

attached guidelines address the issue of taxability of such

assignments.

These guidelines were developed to assist components in

interpreting and implementing the federal and Department of

Justice Travel Regulations, and to achieve greater consistency

within the Department in managing extended travel assignments.

If you have any questions concerning these policies, please call

James E. Williams, Director, Finance Staff, on (202) 616-5800.

Attachments
.

POLICY GUIDELINES FOR EXTENDED TRAVEL ASSIGNMENTS

September 1, 1998

Law and Regulations

1.

The current statutory and regulatory requirements~~~s follows: When ., travel 0 to a single location is expected to last for an

extended period, per diem should be reduced if the employee

is able to obtain lodgings at a weekly or monthly rate that

is less than the maximum allowable. [Federal Travel

Regulation, 41 CFR § 301-7.12(b)]

When travel to a single location ~s expected to be prolonged

or indefinite, consideration should be given.to transferring

the employee to the new location. [Supplement to Order DOJ

2200.11D, § 301-1.7]

2.

Generally, when travel to a single location is expected to

exceed or actually exceeds one year, certain reimbursements

constitute taxable income to the employee.

[26 U.S.C. §162(a)]

3.

4. Travel which is certified as being for the purpose of

investigation or prosecution of a federal crime is excepted

from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 162(a). The exception was

enacted by The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L.

No. 105-34, § 1204,

Policy Guidelines

The following are the policy guidelines of the Department which

apply to all components. In each instance of extended travel

a~~m~lJt;s );;ne_xcess ~!. 90Ja-a-;;;s, a Memorandum of Understaooing

(MOU) must be executed between the employee, the official

authorizing the assignment, and an official at the temporary duty

site in accordance with item #6 below.

1.

Extended Travel Defined: Extended trave!-js travel to a

srng-lelocatiOri whJ.cn exceeds 30 days .-

Reduced per diem. When a travel assignment is expected to

last more than 30 days and where it is possible to secure

lodging and meals at less than the maximum allowable by

travel regulations, total per diem, consisting of lodging

2.
.

to a level of no

allowable for temporary

plus the M&IE

more than 75 percent of

duty travel.

c; ~aS5ignment ~~t- ~~ll las~ more than 90 d~ per diem

must be' 0 reduced~ Normiarry,--per diem will be reduced

we elow the 75 percent level. Absent extenuating

circumstances, the 75 percent level is the ceiling. There

is no minimum entitlement. The actual amount authorized

should approximate the employee's actual expenses. At the

discretion of the authorizing officer, full per diem may be

allowed for the first 30 days of an assignment that will

last more than 90 days, to afford the detailed employee the

opportunity to obtain lower cost lodging and meals.

Exceptions authorizing in excess of 75 percent of the

maximum per diem must be approved by the Component Head or

the Component Head's Principal Deputy, or other official

delegated such authority by either the Component Head or his

or her Principal Deputy.

As an example, consider a detail to Washington, DC. The per

diem for Washington, DC is $12~ per night for lodging plus

$38 per day for M&IE. The maximum allowable for 30 days is

$4,860. Seventy-five percent of that amount is $3,645,

consisting of $2,790 for lodging plus $855 for M&IE. The

$3,645 establishes a ceiling.

Maximum

$124 X 30 = $3,720

38 X 30 = 1,140

$4,860

75%

$2,790

ass

$3,645

Lodging

M&IE

Total

Often, when lodging is secured on a monthly basis, the cost

will be lower than 75 percent of the lodging allo~lance times

30 nights. For example, if an employee on an extended

assignment in Washington obtains lodging for $1,700 per

month, a total per diem of $2,555--53 percent of the maximum

allowance--would be appropriate for a flat monthly rate.

The actual rate to be allowed nust be determined in each

case, based on the expenses the detailed employee is

anticipated to incur.

Other Expenses Considered. If the employee were to

demonstrate the necessity to incur additional reasonable

costs to maintain dual residences while on temporary duty,

those additional costs may be considered in setting the
3.

lodging allowance. In this example, if an employee were to

demonstrate an additional $100 in reasonable costs that are

directly related to the temporary duty assignment, then the

total allowance could be set at $2,655 as a flat monthly

rate. That amount, approximately 55 percent of the maximum,

would consist of the actual cost of lodging plus $100 for

the additional costs relating to the primary residence and

75 percent of the M&IE allowance.

Return Trips Home. There is no regulatory limit to the

number of trips an employee may be required to make for

official purposes. When an employee is on an extended

travel assignment, return trips to the employee's place of

abode may be authorized based on a determination that it is

advantageous to the government. Such trips, paid for by the

government, should not be authorized more frequently than

twice per month, based on length of the assignment and other

particulars of the individual assignment. Fewer trips may

be authorized. More frequent return trips home require

special approval by the Component Head or his or her

Principal Deputy, or other official delegated such authority

by either the Component Head or his or her Principal Deputy,

unless it is cost effective to authorize more frequent

trips.

A specific case-by-case cost analysis is not required to

conclude that the costs of periodic weekend return travel

(including the costs of potential overtime, if applicable)

are outweighed by the savings in terms of per diem,

increased employee efficiency and productivity, as well as

reduced costs of recruitment and retention of employees.

4.

Effect of Leave and other Official Travel on Reimbursement.

When a detailed employee is on leave, or while away

from the extended assignment on a return trip home, or away

for official travel to a different temporary duty location,

the reduced per diem will be further reduced by the daily

M&IE allowance used to calculate the reduced per diem times

the number of days the employee is away from the extended

assignment location. When the employee is on official

travel, per diem shall be paid for the location of that

temporary duty. Only the M&IE portion of per diem paid at

the extended assignment is not paid when the employee is

away from the extended assignment location: all other

expenses will continue to be paid in accordance with the

extended travel authorization. If lodging for the extended

3
.

travel assignment had been on an actual basis rather than

part of reduced per diem, it too could not be paid when

temporary duty travel away from that location is authorized.

5.

Relocation option. When it is known at the outset of an

extended assignment, or when it becomes known that it will

last for a year or more, the transfer option should be

considered. A cost comparison need not be the sole basis

for the transfer decision. Other factors, including but not

limited to, personnel management, employee efficiency and

productivity, short and long term program goals and

strategies should be considered. After March 22, 1997,

temporary relocations with limited reimbursements to

employees may be authorized, in accordance with the Federal

Employee Travel Reform Act of 1996 and implementing

regulations to be issueq by the General ServicesAdministration.

Taxat:,ility of Lodging and Meal Allowances. The following

applies to extended travel assignments, except for travel

assignments which have been certified as being in direct

support of investigation and prosecution of civil and

criminal matters. When extended assignments exceed one year

or when it is reasonably expected that the assignment will

exceed one year, reimbursements (or payments made by the

agency on behalf of the employee) for lodging and M&IE will

constitute taxable income to the employee. Reimbursements

for lodging and M&IE will constitute taxable income to the

employee from the point that the reasonable expectation

arises that the extended assignment will exceed one year.

6.

Even though the term of the assignment may be difficult to

determine at the beginning, the MOU must state an

expectation of the term of the assignment.

The taxable payments/reimbursements are subject to federal,

state, and local income tax with.~olding, FICA withholding

(as appropriate), and Medicare withholding.

To reduce the number of instances in which it is necessary

to tax employees for their travel reimbursements, the

Department's policy is that per diem payments will not

extend beyond one year, unless approved by the Component

Head or his or her Principal Deputy or other official

delegated such authority by either the Component Head or his

4
or her Principal Deputy.

7. Exception to Taxation -Investigation and Prosecution.

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997: Pub. L. No. 105-34, § 1204,

excepts from the l-year limitation on travel deductions

under § 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code, any federal

employee during any period for which such employee is

certified by the Attorney General (or designee thereof) as

traveling on behalf of the United States in a temporary duty

status to investigate, or provide support services for the

investigation of a federal crime. The Internal Revenue

Service has interpreted this provision to also include

travel to prosecute a federal crime. Accordingly, any

extended travel assignments which have been certified as

such, are not taxable. The Attorney General has delegated

to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, the

authority to certify employees as traveling on behalf of the

United States to investigate, litigate, or prosecute federalcrimes. 

This certification is only necessary when the

travel would otherwise be taxable as described in paragraph

6.

8. Receipts Not Required. When extended travel allowances have

been authorized in accordance with these policies and have

been documented through the required Memorandum of

Understanding demonstrating the appropriate per diem

reductions, the per diem rate ~ayable on the payment voucher

will be paid without receipts normally provided by the

employee. (See 41 CFR § 301-7.12.)

9. Memorandum of UnderstaDding (MOU). In each instance of

extended travel assignments in excess of 90 days, an MOU

must be executed between the e~ployee, the official

authorizing the assignment, and a senior official at the

temporary duty site, (so that allowances may be monitored

for equity among all DOJ employees at that location), and

must specify all elements of reimbursement and conditions

affecting those elements, as follows:

Dates. The MOU must state a beginning date and an

expected ending date. The term of the MOU generally

may not exceed one year; therefore, all MOUs must be

renewed no less frequently than annually.

a.

5
b. Cost. MOUs must include the amount of per diem to be

paid, demonstrating appropriate reduction and approvals

in accordance with Department policy. The per diem

authorized should always state separately, the lodging

and the M&IE, even when the total per diem has been

reduced in accordance with paragraph 2.

c.

Residebce. The MOU must require the employ~e to

cert ify whether or not he or she intends: t~; maintain a

personal abode in a real and substantial sense at the

permanent duty station. The MOU must also require the

employee to notify his or her supervisor if at some

point during the assignment, the personal abode at the

official duty station is no longer maintained, or has

been changed in a substantial manner to reduce living

expenses. The MOU must also require that the employee

notify his or her supervisor of any change in the cost

of lodging at the temporary duty location. Management

should review such changes in expenses to determine

whether any adjustment in the lodging allowance is

necessary.

d.

Return Trips Home. The Mali must specify the frequency

of return trips home that will be reimbursed by the

Government, excluding trips required for official duty

for purposes relating to the extended assignment or for

other purposes.

e.

Taxability., The MOU must state whether or not any

payments on behalf of, or reimbursements to, the

employee are to be considered taxable income to the

employee. Unless excepted under paragraph 6., MOUs for

assignments expected to exceed one year must contain a

specific provision that all per diem reimbursements are

taxable income to the employee.

6