Travel Cards: Internal Control Weaknesses at DOD Led to Improper Use of First and Business Class Travel
Published: 2003-11-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Long-standing financial management problems, coupled with ineffective oversight and management of the Department of Defense's (DOD) travel card program, which GAO has previously reported on, have led to concerns about DOD's use of first and business class airfares. At the request of the Subcommittee on Investigations, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Senator Grassley, and Representative Schakowsky, GAO performed work to identify problems in DOD's controls over premium class travel. This testimony focuses on (1) the extent of DOD premium class travel, (2) the effectiveness of key internal control activities and examples of improper premium class travel resulting from internal control breakdowns, and (3) DOD's control environment over premium class travel. In a companion report being issued today, GAO made numerous recommendations--that DOD concurred with--to strengthen key internal control activities and improve the overall control environment.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Breakdowns in internal controls and a weak control environment resulted in a significant level of improper premium class travel and millions of dollars of unnecessary costs being incurred annually. Based on extensive analysis of records obtained from DOD's credit card issuer--Bank of America, GAO found that for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, DOD spent almost $124 million on about 68,000 premium class tickets that included at least one leg of premium class service, primarily business class. To put the $124 million into perspective it exceeded the total travel expenses--including airfare, lodging, and meals--spent by each of 12 major CFO agencies. The price difference between a premium class ticket and a coach class ticket ranged from a few dollars to thousands of dollars. Based on statistical sample testing, GAO estimated that 72 percent of DOD's fiscal year 2001 and 2002 premium class travel was not properly authorized, and that 73 percent was not properly justified. GAO estimated that senior civilian and military employees accounted for almost 50 percent of premium class travel. Further, our data mining showed that 27 of the 28 most frequent premium class travelers were senior DOD officials. Lack of oversight and a weak overall control environment characterized DOD's management of premium class travel. DOD and the military services (1) did not have accurate and complete data on the extent of premium class travel, (2) issued inadequate policies on premium class travel that were inconsistent with government travel regulations and with each other, (3) did not issue guidance on how to document the authorization and justification of premium class travel, and (4) performed little or no monitoring of this travel. During the course of our audit, DOD began updating its travel regulations to more clearly articulate and to make more stringent the circumstances under which premium class travel can be authorized.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Defense’s  (DOD) management of premium class travel acquired using centrally billed  accounts.  Our related report, released today and developed at the request  of this Subcommittee, Senator Grassley, and Representative Schakowsky,  describes the problems we identified in DOD’s controls over premium class  travel.  These problems are illustrative of DOD’s long-standing financial  management problems, which are pervasive, complex, and deeply rooted in  virtually all business operations throughout the department.  Such  problems led us in 1995 to put DOD financial management on our list of  high-risk areas—those that are highly vulnerable to fraud, waste, and  abuse—a designation that continues today. Due to these vulnerabilities,  and our identification of fraud, waste, and abuse in a series of testimoniesand reportswe issued in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 on DOD’s individually  billed travel cards, you asked us to audit controls over the other major form  of payment used by DOD for travel expenses—centrally billed accounts.
The centrally billed accounts are used by most DOD services and units to  purchase transportation services such as airline and train tickets, facilitate  group travel, and procure other travel-related expenses, while the  individually billed accounts are used by individual travelers for lodging,  rental cars, and other travel expenses.  For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, DOD  travelers incurred $7.1 billion in expenses on the centrally billed and  individually billed travel card accounts, with about $2.8 billion related to  the use of centrally billed accounts.
Today, I will summarize our work on DOD’s use of premium class travel  charged to its centrally billed accounts.  Federal travel regulations define  premium class travel as any class of accommodation above coach class,  that is, first or business class.  General Services Administration (GSA) and  DOD regulations state that travelers must use coach class accommodations  for official business air travel—both domestic and international—except  when a traveler is specifically authorized to use premium class.  These  regulations restrict premium class travel to limited circumstances.  The  regulations state that travelers on official government business must  exercise the same standard of care in incurring expenses that a prudent  person would exercise if traveling on personal business.  Premium class  flights are not something travelers are entitled to simply because certain  conditions exist.  Rather, when possible, travelers are to plan their travel in  advance to avoid the necessity for premium class travel.
My testimony will focus on (1) the extent of premium class travel during  fiscal years 2001 and 2002—the most recently available data at the time of  our work, (2) the effectiveness of key internal control activities and  examples of improper premium class travel resulting from internal control  breakdowns, and (3) DOD’s control environment over premium class  travel.
subsections: section_title: Extent of Premium Class Travel Is Significant
paragraphs: As shown in table 1, DOD spent nearly $124 million on airline tickets that  included at least one leg of premium class service during fiscal years 2001  and 2002.  However, because DOD did not maintain centralized data on  premium class travel, we had to extract these data from Bank of America’s  databases of DOD centrally billed account travel, which included over 5.3  million transactions for airline tickets valued at over $2.4 billion.  Due to  limitations in the information collected on individual transactions, we were  unable to determine the amount of premium class travel by military service  or the amount of premium class travel used for domestic versus overseas  flights.
DOD’s premium class air travel accounted for a very small percentage of  DOD travel overall—about 1 percent of total DOD airline transactions and  5 percent of total DOD dollars spent on airline travel.  However, to put the  $124 million that DOD spent on premium class travel in perspective, the  amount DOD spent on premium class-related travel during these 2 fiscal  years exceeded the total travel and transportation expenses—including  airfare, lodging, and meals—spent by each of 12 major agencies covered by  the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, including the Social Security  Administration; the Departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban  Development, and Labor; and the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration.
The difference between the price of a premium class ticket and a  comparable coach class ticket can range from negligible—particularly if  the traveler traveled within Europe—to thousands of dollars.  In one  instance, a traveler’s first class flight between Washington, D.C., and Los  Angeles was 14 times, or about $3,000 more than, the price of a comparable  coach class flight at the government fare.
Higher-ranking civilian personnel and military officials accounted for a  large part of premium class travel.  Based on our statistical sample, we  estimated that DOD civilian employees under the General Schedule (GS)  grade GS-13 to GS-15 (supervisors and managers), Senior Executive  Service (SES) (career senior executives), presidential appointees with  Senate confirmation, and DOD senior military officers O-4 and above  accounted for almost 50 percent of premium class travel.  GAO’s Guide for  Evaluating and Testing Controls Over Sensitive Payments considers  travel by high-ranking officials, in particular senior-level executives, to be a  sensitive payment area because of its susceptibility to abuse or  noncompliance with laws and regulations.
section_title: Internal Control Activities Not Effectively Implemented
paragraphs: Control activities occur at all levels and functions of an agency.  They  include a wide range of diverse activities such as authorizations, reviews,  approvals, and the production of records and documentation.  For first and  business class travel, we tested control activities designed to provide  assurance that premium class travel transactions are (1) authorized and  (2) justified in accordance to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), issued  by GSA to implement travel policies for federal civilian employees and  others authorized to travel at government expense, and DOD’s travel  regulations, including the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), which  applies to uniformed service members, and the Joint Travel Regulations  (JTR), which applies to DOD civilian personnel who are subject to GSA’s  travel regulation.  These regulations generally require that premium class  travel be specifically authorized in advance of travel and only under  specific circumstances.  (See app. I for further details of GSA and DOD  premium class travel regulations.)  For example, although FTR and DOD  travel regulations allow premium class travel when the scheduled flight  time is in excess of 14 hours, these regulations prohibit use of premium  class accommodation if the traveler has scheduled rest stops.
In addition to the FTR and DOD regulations, we also applied the criteria set  forth in our internal control standards and sensitive payments guidelinesin evaluating the proper authorization of premium class travel.  For  example, while DOD travel regulations and policies do not address the  issue of subordinates authorizing their supervisors’ premium class travel,  our internal control standards consider such a policy to be flawed from an  independence viewpoint.  Therefore, a premium class transaction that was  approved by a subordinate would fail the controls over authorization test.  Using these guidelines, we estimated, based on our statistical sample, that  an estimated 72 percent of the DOD centrally billed travel transactions  containing premium class travel for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 were not  properly authorized and that an estimated 73 percent were not properly  justified.
As shown in table 2, an estimated 64 percent of premium class transactions  did not contain travel orders that specifically authorized the traveler to fly  premium class, and thus the commercial travel office—a travel agency—  should not have issued the premium class ticket.  Another 6 percent of  premium class transactions were related to instances where the travel  order authorizing business class was not signed (left blank) or the travel  order authorizing first class was not signed by the service secretary or his  or her designee, as required by DOD regulations.  If the travel order is not  signed, or not signed by the individual designated to do so, DOD has no  assurance that the substantially higher cost of the premium class tickets  was properly reviewed and represented an efficient use of government  resources.  We also estimated that 2 percent of the premium class  transactions involved situations where a subordinate approved a superior’s  travel.  Although these limited instances do not necessarily indicate the  existence of a significant systemic problem, allowing subordinates to  approve their supervisors’ premium class travel is synonymous with self- approval and reduces scrutiny of premium class requests.
Another internal control weakness identified in the statistical sample was  that the justification used for premium class travel was not always  provided, not accurate, and/or not complete enough to warrant the  additional cost to the government.  As previously stated, premium class  travel is not an entitlement and recent changes to DOD regulations state  that in the context of lengthy flights premium class travel should only be  used when exceptional circumstances warrant and alternatives should be  explored to avoid the additional cost of premium class travel.  As shown in  table 2, an estimated 72 percent of premium class transactions were not  authorized and therefore because they were not properly authorized they  could not have been justified.  An additional two transactions in our sample  which were authorized but not justified in accordance with DOD’s criteria  increased our estimate of premium class transactions that were not  justified to 73 percent.
Considering the significant breakdown in key internal controls, it was not  surprising that our audit identified numerous examples of improper  premium class travel that cost DOD significantly more than what would  have been spent on a coach class ticket.  Table 3 illustrates a few of the  types of unauthorized and/or unjustified transactions from both our  statistical samples and data mining work, along with a comparison  between amounts actually paid and the comparable coach fares at that  time.  Without authorization or adequate justification, these cases illustrate  the improper use of premium class travel and the resulting increase in  travel costs.  For further details on the cases shown in table 3, as well as  additional examples of unauthorized and/or unjustified transactions, please  refer to the report that we released today on this subject.
Our work also included data mining to identify the individuals who traveled  premium class most frequently.  We identified 28 of the most frequent  premium class travelers from the 68,090 premium class transactions during  fiscal years 2001 and 2002.  All but 1 of the 28 frequent travelers were at  least GS-13 civilians or O-4 military, that is, senior DOD personnel.  We  found that the most frequent travelers were, in most instances, authorized  to obtain premium class travel by people at the same or higher levels, with  3 of the 28 failing the authorization test because they or their subordinates  authorized their travel orders.  However, we determined that many of the  transactions were improper because their justification was not supported  by the documentation provided or did not adhere to FTR and DOD travel  regulations.
Some cases involving frequent travelers were questionable because the  justification documentation was not adequate to determine whether the  transaction met DOD’s criteria.  We found that 12 of the 28 frequent  premium class travelers justified their more expensive flights with a  medical condition.  However, we identified several anomalies in the  application of medical condition justification, as evidenced by travelers  who used both coach and premium class accommodations during flights of  similar duration and during the same time period.  For example, frequent  traveler 1 in table 4 took 14 premium and 31 coach class trips during fiscal  years 2001 and 2002.  Many of the coach class trips, for example, from  Washington, D.C., to Honolulu or cities in California were similar in  duration to premium class trips from Washington, D.C., to Frankfurt or  Amsterdam.  This may indicate that additional steps should be taken to  verify the validity of the medical certification.  During testing, an Army  official at the Traffic Management Office informed us that his office  forwards all medical certifications to the Surgeon General for an opinion  before recommending to the Secretary of the Army that approval be  granted for first class travel.  For further details on the cases shown in table  4, as well as additional examples of travelers who frequently used premium  travel, please refer to the report that we released today.
section_title: Weaknesses in Internal Control Environment
paragraphs: GAO’s Standards for Internal Controlstates that a positive control  environment is the foundation for all other standards.  The importance of  the “tone at the top” or the role of management in establishing a strong  control environment cannot be overstated.  However, we found that prior  to us initiating this audit, DOD had not taken actions to encourage a strong  internal control environment over premium class travel.  Specifically, DOD  and the military services did not (1) maintain adequate and accurate  premium class travel data, (2) issue adequate policies related to the  approval of premium travel, (3) require consistent documentation to justify  premium class travel, and (4) perform audits or evaluations of premium  class travel and did not monitor training provided to travelers, authorizing  officials, and commercial travel offices employees on governmentwide and  DOD premium class travel regulations.  During the course of our work,  DOD updated the JTR and JFTR in April 2003 to articulate more clearly and  to make more stringent the circumstances under which premium class  travel can be authorized.
subsections: section_title: DOD Did Not Maintain Centralized Management Data on Premium Class Travel
paragraphs: The FTR requires DOD, along with all other executive and legislative  branch agencies, to provide GSA annual reports listing all instances in  which the organization approved the use of first class transportation  accommodations.  We found that the Military Traffic Management  Command (MTMC), responsible for tracking DOD’s first class travel,  understated DOD’s cost and frequency of first class travel reported to GSA.  According to DOD’s first class travel reports submitted to GSA for fiscal  years 2001 and 2002, DOD civilian and military personnel took less than  1,000 first class flight segmentstotaling less than $600,000.  In contrast,  our analysis of the Bank of America airline transaction data indicates that  DOD purchased more than 1,240 tickets containing over 2,000 separate  segments with first class accommodations.  Our analysis also found that  these first class tickets costs of about $2.9 million were almost 5 times the  amount DOD reported to GSA.  We found that a number of cities were  omitted from DOD’s first class report.  For example, while DOD data  indicated that no first class flights were taken into Washington, D.C., during  fiscal year 2001, Bank of America data identified 88 first class flights into  Washington D.C., during the same time period.
We also found that DOD did not obtain or maintain centralized data on  premium class travel other than first class, i.e., business class.  Consequently, DOD did not know, and was unable to provide us with data  related to, the extent of its premium class travel.  As mentioned previously,  we were able to obtain such data through extensive analysis and  extractions of DOD travel card transactions from databases provided by  the Bank of America.
section_title: Control Environment Is Flawed by Inconsistencies in Premium Class Travel Guidance
paragraphs: DOD travelers must follow a complicated array of premium class travel  guidance.  The applicability of specific regulations depends on whether the  traveler is civilian or military.  For DOD civilians, GSA’s FTR governs travel  and transportation allowances.  DOD’s JTR and individual DOD and military service directives, orders, and instructions supplement the FTR.
For military personnel, DOD’s JFTR governs travel and transportation  allowances.  Individual DOD and military service directives, orders, and  instructions supplement the JFTR.  The executive branch policy on the use  of first class travel applicable to the FTR, JTR, and JFTR is found in OMB  Bulletin 93-11.  When a subordinate organization issues an implementing  regulation or guidance, the subordinate organization may make the  regulations more stringent, but generally may not relax the rules  established by higher-level guidance.
Inconsistencies have accumulated within the various premium class travel  regulations because DOD did not revise its directives, or require the  military services to revise their travel policies or implementing guidance,  when DOD modified the JTR or JFTR.  For example, DOD first issued the  JTR in 1965 and since then has modified it 450 times through April 2003,  including 30 modifications since October 2000.  While the JFTR has had  fewer modifications—196 through April 2003—the JFTR has also been  modified 30 times since October 2000.  In contrast, DOD Directive 4500.9,  Transportation and Traffic Management, was last revised in 1993 while  DOD Directive 4500.56, Use of Government Aircraft and Air Travel, was  last updated in 1999.  Similarly, the Navy Passenger Transportation  Manual was last updated in 1998, the Marine Corps Order P4600.7C  Marine Corps Transportation Manual was last changed in 1992, and while  the Air Force Instruction 24-101 Passenger Movement was last updated in  2002, it contains some provisions that are contrary to GAO’s internal  control standards and sensitive payments guidelines.
Inconsistencies also exist because DOD and its components have elected  to authorize the use of premium class travel in different circumstances or  have described the authorization to use premium class using different  language.  For example,
DOD Directive 4500.9 grants blanket authority for high-ranking officials  to use premium class when traveling overseas on official government  business.  This policy contradicts and is less stringent than the FTR,  which does not cite rank as a condition for obtaining premium class  travel.
GSA’s FTR authorizes agencies to approve the use of first class or  business class accommodations when required by an agency’s mission,  but neither the JTR nor the JFTR adopt this authorization.  In contrast,  DOD’s policies on transportation and traffic management—DOD  Directive 4500.9—states that the use of business class on domestic  travelmay be authorized when necessitated by mission requirements.
GSA’s FTR prohibits premium class travel if the traveler is authorized a  rest stop en route or a rest period upon arrival at the duty site, even if  the scheduled flight time is in excess of 14 hours.  While DOD’s JTR and  JFTR that were in effect at the time of our audit should have contained  the same restriction, they were silent as to whether a rest period upon  arrival would exclude a traveler from traveling in premium class.  Further, the services’ implementing guidance is inconsistent in their  application of the 14-hour rule.
section_title: DOD Does Not Have a Standard Format for Documenting Premium Class Travel
paragraphs: Because premium travel is to be used only on an exception basis after all  other alternatives have been exhausted, the documentation for  authorization and justification should be held to the highest standards to  provide reasonable assurance that in every case, the substantially higher  premium travel cost is warranted.  The JTR and JFTR state that approval  for premium class travel should be obtained in advance of travel, except in  extenuating/emergency circumstances that make authorization impossible,  and specify the circumstances under which premium travel is to be  permitted.  However, we found substantial inconsistencies in the  documentation trail indicating that appropriate officials approved premium  class travel based on inadequate documentation.
In contrast, other federal agencies have issued clear and consistent  guidelines related to the documentation of premium class travel.  For  example, the Department of Agriculture approves the use of premium class  accommodations on a case-by-case basis and specifies that premium travel  be approved by the under secretary except when frequent travel benefits  are used.  The justification must include the specific circumstances relating  to the criteria, such as a medical justification from a competent medical  authority, which must include a description of the employee’s disability,  medical condition, or special need; approximate duration of the medical  condition or special need; and a recommendation of a suitable means of  transportation based on medical condition or special need.  The National  Institutes of Health (NIH) requires that the traveler, when requesting  premium class travel based on a medical condition, detail the nature of the  disability or special need on an authorization form for employees with  disabilities or other special needs.  The authorization form must be signed  by both the employee and a competent medical authority.  NIH’s policies  state that the medical statement should specifically address why it is  necessary to use upgraded accommodations.  The form also limits the  authority to a period of 6 or 12 months from the initial date of approval  depending on the nature of the disability or special need.  In the instance of  a permanent disability, NIH policy is that authorized use of premium class  accommodations is valid for up to 3 years, but that resubmission is  necessary to ensure that there continues to be a need for the premium class  travel.
section_title: Oversight and Monitoring Needs Improvement
paragraphs: In general, effective oversight activities would include management review  and evaluation of the process for issuing premium class travel and  independent evaluations aimed directly at the effectiveness of internal  control activities.  Our internal control standards state that separate  evaluations of control should depend on the assessment of risks and the  effectiveness of ongoing monitoring procedures.  As mentioned above, we  consider executive travel as a high-risk area susceptible to abuse or  noncompliance with laws and regulations.  However, we found no evidence  of any audits or evaluations of premium class travel.  The lack of effective  oversight and monitoring was another contributing factor to DOD and the  services’ lacking knowledge of the extent of improper premium class  transactions.
The lack of oversight was further demonstrated by the fact that travelers,  supervisors/managers, and employees at the commercial travel offices  (CTO) responsible for issuing airline tickets to the travelers were not  adequately informed on governmentwide and DOD travel regulations  concerning when premium class travel is or is not to be authorized.  Thus, it  was not surprising that some DOD travelers and authorizing officials were  under the mistaken impression that travel regulations entitled travelers to  travel in business class when their flights exceed 14 hours.  These  individuals were not aware that the FTR provides that, in order to qualify  for business class travel, travelers have to proceed directly to work upon  arriving at the duty location.  DOD also did not verify whether CTO  employees receive training in DOD premium travel regulations.  A  representative from one commercial travel office informed us that they  issue premium class travel if premium class was requested on the travel  order, even if justification for obtaining premium class travel was flawed—  for example, the flight was not at least 14 hours.
section_title: DOD Issued New Regulations to Better Define When Premium Class Travel is Authorized
paragraphs: During the course of our work, in April 2003, DOD updated the JTR and  JFTR to articulate more clearly and make more stringent the  circumstances under which premium class other than first class travel, that  is, business class, is authorized for DOD travelers on flights to and/or from  points outside the continental United States when the scheduled flight time  exceeds 14 hours.  The revised regulations prohibit the use of business  class travel when travelers are authorized a “rest period” or an overnight  stay upon arrival at their duty station, and state that business class  accommodations are not authorized on the return leg of travel.
Finally, in its revised regulations, DOD states that, in the context of  authorizing business class accommodations for flights scheduled to exceed  14 hours, “business class accommodations must not be common practice”  and that such service should be used only in exceptional circumstances.  Further, DOD directs order-issuing officials to “consider each request for  business class service individually.”  We agree with DOD that decisions  regarding the use of premium class travel should be made on a case-by-case  basis and based on a preference for coach class.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The ineffective management and oversight of premium class travel  provides another example of why DOD financial management is one of our  “high-risk” areas, with the department highly vulnerable to fraud, waste,  and abuse.  DOD does not have the management controls in place to  identify issues such as improper use of premium class travel.  As a result,  millions of dollars of unnecessary costs are incurred annually. Because  premium class travel is substantially more costly than coach travel, it  should only be used when absolutely necessary, and the standards for  approval and justification must be appropriately high.  During our audit,  DOD began taking steps to improve its policies and procedures for  premium class travel.  DOD must build on these improvements and  establish strong controls over this sensitive area to ensure that its travel  dollars are spent in an economical and efficient manner.
Our related report on these issues released today includes  recommendations to DOD.  Our recommendations address the need to  improve internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that  authorization and justification for premium class travel are appropriate,  monitor the extent of premium class travel, modify policies and procedures  to make them consistent with GSA regulations, and issue policies  prohibiting subordinates or the travelers themselves from authorizing  premium class travel.  In oral comments on a draft of this report, DOD  officials concurred with our recommendations to resolve the control  weaknesses.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, Senator Grassley, and Ms.  Schakowsky, this concludes my prepared statement.  I would be pleased to  answer any questions that you may have.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Gregory D.  Kutz at (202) 512-9095, John J. Ryan at (202) 512-9587, or John V. Kelly at (202) 512-6926.  Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  included Kris Braaten, Beverly Burke, Francine DelVecchio, Aaron Holling,  Jeffrey Jacobson, Julie Matta, Sidney H. Schwartz, and Tuyet-Quan Thai.
section_title: GSA and DOD Premium Class Travel Regulations
paragraphs: DOD travelers must follow a complicated array of premium class travel  guidance.  The applicability of specific regulations depends on whether the  traveler is civilian or military.  For DOD civilians, GSA’s FTR governs travel  and transportation allowances.  DOD’s JTR and individual DOD and  military service directives, orders, and instructions supplement the FTR.  For military personnel, DOD’s JFTR governs travel and transportation  allowances.  Individual DOD and military service directives, orders, and  instructions supplement the JFTR.  The executive branch policy on the use  of first class travel applicable to the FTR, JTR, and JFTR is found in OMB  Bulletin 93-11.  When a subordinate organization issues an implementing  regulation or guidance, the subordinate organization may make the  regulations more stringent, but generally may not relax the rules  established by higher-level guidance.
GSA and DOD regulations authorize the use of premium class travel under  specific circumstances.  The JTR and the JFTR limit the authority to  authorize first class travel to the Secretary of Defense, his or her deputy, or  other officials as designated by the Secretary of Defense.  However, while  both the JTR and JFTR provide that the authority to authorize first class  travel may be delegated and re-delegated, the regulations specify that the  authority must be delegated to “as high an administrative level as  practicable to ensure adequate consideration and review of the  circumstances necessitating the first class accommodations.”  DOD travel  regulations also require that authorization for premium class  accommodations be made in advance of the actual travel unless  extenuating circumstances or emergency situations make advance  authorization impossible.  DOD regulations also provide that first class  accommodations may be used without authorization only when regularly  scheduled flights between the authorized origin and destination (including  connecting points) provide only first class accommodations. Specifically,  the JTR and JFTR state that first class accommodation is authorized only  when at least one of the following conditions exists: coach class airline accommodations or premium class other than first  class airline accommodations are not reasonably available; the traveler is so handicapped or otherwise physically impaired that  other accommodations cannot be used, and such condition is  substantiated by competent medical authority; or exceptional security circumstances require such travel.
The JTR and JFTR allow the transportation officer, in conjunction with the  official who issued the travel order, to approve premium class travel other  than first class.  In accordance with the FTR, DOD restricts premium class  travel to the following eight circumstances: regularly scheduled flights between origin and destination provide only  premium class accommodations, and this is certified on the travel  voucher; coach class is not available in time to accomplish the purpose of the  official travel, which is so urgent it cannot be postponed; premium class travel is necessary to accommodate the traveler’s  disability or other physical impairment, and the condition is  substantiated in writing by competent medical authority; premium class travel is needed for security purposes or because  exceptional circumstances make its use essential to the successful  performance of the mission; coach class accommodations on authorized/approved foreign carriers  do not provide adequate sanitation or meet health standards; premium class accommodations would result in overall savings to the  government because of subsistence costs, overtime, or lost productive  time that would be incurred while awaiting coach class  accommodations; transportation is paid in full by a nonfederal source; or travel is to or from a destination outside the continental United States,  and the scheduled flight time (including stopovers) is in excess of 14  hours.  However, if premium class accommodations are authorized, a  rest stop is prohibited.
Both GSA and DOD regulations allow a traveler to upgrade to premium  class other than first class travel at personal expense, through redemption  of frequent traveler benefits.  GSA also identified agency mission as one of  the criteria for premium class travel.  However, agency mission is not a  DOD criterion for obtaining premium class travel.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.