jtr overseas travel days

SECTION 301-10.125

301-10.125 when may i use the 14-hour rule to travel other than coach-class (see § 301-10.123(b)(6)).

(a) You may use the 14-hour rule to travel via other than coach-class when:

(1) The origin and/or destination are OCONUS; and

(2) The scheduled flight time, including non-overnight stopovers and change of planes, is in excess of 14 hours; and

(3) You are required to report to duty the following day or sooner.

(b) Scheduled flight time is the flight time between the originating departure point and the ultimate arrival point including scheduled non-overnight time spent at airports during plane changes. Scheduled non-overnight time does not include time spent at the originating or ultimate arrival airports.

(c) If other than coach-class accommodation is authorized based on the 14-hour rule then you will not be eligible for a rest stop en route or a rest period upon arrival at your duty site, in accordance with internal agency procedures pursuant to § 301-70.102(j).

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• A–Z Index
• Operating Status

Resources For

• New / Prospective Employees
• Federal Employees
• HR Professionals

Compensatory Time Off for Travel - Examples

Fact sheet: compensatory time off for travel - examples, examples of creditable travel time, example 1: travel to a temporary duty station on a workday.

On a workday, an employee is required to travel from home to a temporary duty station for an afternoon meeting. The employee's regular working hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In total, the employee spends 13 hours (6:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) traveling to and from the worksite. However, the time between 8:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. is compensable as part of the employee's regular working hours. Also, an employee's time spent traveling outside of regular working hours to or from a transportation terminal (e.g., an airport or train station) within the limits of his or her official duty station is considered to be equivalent to commuting time and is not creditable travel time. (See 5 CFR 550.1404(d).) In this case, the employee spends 2 hours traveling to and from an airport within the limits of his official duty station.

In this example, the employee's compensatory time off for travel entitlement is as follows:

Total travel time: 13 hours

Travel time within regular working hours: 4.5 hours

Travel to/from airport within limits of official duty station: 2 hours

Compensatory time off for travel: 6.5 hours

Back to Top

Example 2: Travel to a temporary duty station on a nonworkday

An employee is required to travel to a temporary duty station for a week-long conference. The employee's regular working hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Because the conference begins early Monday morning, the employee travels to a hotel at the temporary duty station the Sunday evening before the conference. The conference is scheduled to continue into the evening on Friday, so the employee returns home on Saturday morning.

In total, the employee spends 13 hours (5:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Sunday and 6:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on the following Saturday) traveling to and from the conference. However, the hour the employee spends on Sunday traveling to the airport and the hour the employee spends on Saturday traveling from the airport within the limits of her official duty station is considered equivalent to commuting time and is not creditable time in a travel status.

* The agency's compensatory time off for travel policy allows up to 90 minutes of creditable waiting time at a transportation terminal. Therefore, only the time from 7:00 to 8:30 a.m. is creditable as "usual waiting time." (See 5 CFR 550.1404(b)(1).) The time from 8:30 to 10:30 a.m. is considered "extended waiting time" and is not creditable. (See 5 CFR 550.1404(b)(2).)

Extended waiting time: 2 hours

Compensatory time off for travel: 9 hours

Example 3: Travel from a temporary duty station on a workday (with cancelled connecting flight)

On a Friday (workday), an employee is required to travel from a temporary duty station to home. However, due to severe weather, the employee's connecting flight is cancelled until Saturday morning (nonworkday). On Friday, the employee's regular working hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In total, the employee spends 17.5 hours (5:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday and 6:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturday) traveling from the temporary duty station. However, the time between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. is compensable as part of the employee's regular working hours. (For the purpose of this example, we are assuming the employee has a 30-minute meal period during his regular working hours.) The extended waiting period from 4:30 p.m. until the employee departs for the airport on Saturday morning is not creditable travel time, since the employee is free to use the time for his own purposes. (See 5 CFR 550.1404(b)(2).) Also, an employee's time spent traveling outside of regular working hours to or from a transportation terminal (e.g., an airport or train station) within the limits of his or her official duty station is considered to be equivalent to commuting time and is not creditable travel time. (See 5 CFR 550.1404(d).) In this case, the employee spent 1 hour traveling from an airport within the limits of his official duty station.

Total travel time: 17.5 hours

Travel time within regular working hours: 8.5 hours

Travel from airport within limits of official duty station: 1 hour

Compensatory time off for travel: 8 hours

Example 4: Driving to and from a temporary duty station on a workday

An employee is required to travel to a temporary duty station on a workday for a 1-day training session. The training location is a 2-hour drive from the employee's home. The employee's regular working hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In total, the employee spends 4 hours (6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.) driving to and from the training session.

If an employee travels directly between home and a temporary duty station outside the limits of his or her official duty station, the time spent traveling outside regular working hours is creditable travel time. However, the agency must deduct the time the employee would have spent in normal home-to-work/work-to-home commuting. (See 5 CFR 550.1404(c).) In this case, the employee's normal daily commuting time is 2 hours (1 hour each way). Therefore, 2 hours must be deducted from the employee's creditable travel time.

Total travel time: 4 hours

Normal commuting time: 2 hours

Compensatory time off for travel: 2 hours

Example 5: Travel to multiple temporary duty stations on a workday

An employee is required to travel on a workday to two temporary duty stations to make presentations to stakeholders. The employee's regular working hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In total, the employee spends 13.5 hours traveling (6:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m., 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m., and 4:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.) between home and the two presentation sites. However, the time between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. is compensable as the employee's regular working hours. (For the purpose of this example, we are assuming the employee has a 30-minute meal period during her regular working hours.) Also, the 2 hours the employee spends traveling outside of regular working hours to and from the airport within the limits of her official duty station is not creditable travel time.

Total travel time: 13.5 hours

Travel time within regular working hours: 5.5 hours

Compensatory time off for travel: 6 hours

Iranian Insiders Warn That Attacking Israel Is a Trap

Some say a big war will help the country’s enemies. But is anyone listening?

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

Iran lobbed hundreds of missiles and drones at Israel in April in the hope of changing the rules of engagement: Israel had struck an Iranian consulate in Damascus, and Tehran sought to deter any further such direct actions against its interests. Those hopes were shattered last week when an operation attributed to Israel took out Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political chief, on Iranian soil. Haniyeh was in Tehran to attend the inauguration of President Masud Pezeshkian.

The badly humiliated Iranian regime now seems poised to launch a new attack on Israel—one that Western officials believe is imminent . The Jordanian foreign minister made a weekend trip to Tehran, the first of its kind since 2005, but seems not to have changed the will of Tehran’s leadership. (Notably, the minister reportedly told Iran that Amman wouldn’t open its airspace to attacks by Iran, the United States, or Israel, which could mean that it will shoot down Israel-bound Iranian missiles over its skies, just as it did back in April.) Today, Iran’s foreign ministry held a reception for ambassadors based in Tehran, to set out its legal case for striking Israel. On the same day, Russia’s national security adviser was in Tehran, holding meetings with Iran’s top military officials. Moscow claimed to have arranged this trip months ago, but it coincided exactly with the U.S. Centcom Commander Michael Kurilla’s visit to Israel.

In an ominous sign of what’s to come, Iran’s state TV is broadcasting vox-pop interviews, in which ordinary people on the streets of Tehran urge Iran to attack Israel, even suggesting that it should hit Tel Aviv or “turn Haifa into rubble.” Such interviews are widely known to be pre-staged. Actual sentiments on the Iranian street are likely quite different: Iranian voters repeatedly reject hard-line candidates, and ordinary people have little to gain from a war with Israel.

Read: Ordinary Iranians don’t want a war with Israel

The Iranian regime has nonetheless threatened for decades to destroy Israel. The willingness to hit it directly is new, however, and based on fresh calculations by the regime’s security and military elites.

To understand these calculations better, I spoke with Mostafa Najafi, a Tehran-based expert on the country’s security elites. He told me that the Iranian regime has become more willing to directly engage Israel not out of ideological zeal but because it seeks to prevent Israel from changing the balance of power in the region (he wouldn’t say in what manner, but he was likely referring to Israel expanding ties with regional Sunni Arab states in recent years). To that end, Najafi said, Iran is even ready to enter an “all-out regional war.” The April attacks, Najafi told me, were not designed to cause any casualties, but the one that’s coming will be “probably more decisive and more painful.”

Hawkish views, such as Najafi describes, undergird Iran’s support for the anti-Israel militias it calls the Axis of Resistance. And they are most likely widely shared within the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the powerful militia that will direct the attacks on Israel.

But these attitudes are not uniform across the Iranian establishment. In the past few days, even as the drums of war have beaten louder than they ever have, some within Iran’s establishment have raised their voice to urge a cautious response to Haniyeh’s assassination. These dissenters claim that the Israeli attack is an attempt to prevent Pezeshkian’s new government from patching up Iran’s relations with countries in the region and the West. Iran should do all that it can not to broaden the regional conflict, they urge.

The kernel of this argument was evident in the reaction of Javad Zarif, Iran’s former foreign minister, to Haniyeh’s killing. Zarif, who headed Pezeshkian’s transition team and is now vice president for strategic affairs, took to X to accuse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of “pushing the region and the world to the brink of catastrophe.” He urged the United States and the European Union to “stop shielding Netanyahu’s madness and join the world in ending his suicidal chaos.”

Zarif promptly came under attack for focusing his ire on Netanyahu and not Israel as a whole, and for separating the United States from Israel. The regime’s official response, by contrast, claimed that the U.S. was complicit in the assassination, despite American denial of any involvement.

Read: Is Iran a country or a cause?

Other figures close to Pezeshkian have made the case more forthrightly. Iran must work together with countries in the Middle East and Europe, as well as “parts of the U.S. government,” to bring down Netanyahu, declared Hossein Marashi, a former vice president and the head of a prominent reformist party. Marashi told reporters that Iran should respond militarily to the assassination, “but only if we don’t move inside the trap set out by Israel’s rulers and don’t help bring about an expansion of war, which is what Netanyahu wants.”

Hamidreza Dehghani, Iran’s former ambassador to Qatar, made a similar case: Netanyahu killed Haniyeh to prolong the war in Gaza, undermine Iran’s new government, and boost the chances for a Republican victory in the U.S. presidential election, he claimed . An Iranian response “without prudence,” he warned, will help Netanyahu achieve his goals. Mohammad Sadr, a former deputy foreign minister and a current member of Iran’s Expediency Council, echoed this view: To avoid walking into “Israel’s trap,” Sadr said, Iran shouldn’t “act with haste.” The Iranian reformist press has picked up this line of reasoning. Iran’s response to Israel should make sure “a war wouldn’t break out … for Iran not to fall into Netanyahu’s trap,” urged an editorial in the reformist daily Etemad .

A centrist outlet took a more aggressive tack, but its logic was ultimately similar: Asre Iran ran a long story about Eli Cohen, the legendary Israeli spy who once infiltrated the highest echelons of the Syrian regime. Cohen got to where he was by being the loudest anti-Israel voice in every room in Damascus, the outlet said; if Iran wants to find who helped Israel infiltrate its ranks, it should start by looking at anti-Israel hard-liners who ask for harsh policies that will help bring about Iran’s isolation. Both outlets urged Iran to focus on its domestic woes instead.

Will any of these voices of caution and restraint make a difference?

“Zarif and co. are making their case, but the hard-liners are not even pretending to listen,” a political consultant close to the former foreign minister told me, on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the media. “It doesn’t look good at all.”

As the head of Iran’s national-security council, Pezeshkian should technically have at least some role in shaping the debate. But he lacks any foreign-policy experience and seems overwhelmed by the moment. He is thus unlikely to be a forceful proponent for Zarif’s views, especially because he has repeatedly declared his primary loyalty to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the old, hard-line ayatollah who has brought his country closer than it has ever been to a catastrophic war. “No one knows what’s going on in Khamenei’s office,” the political consultant said.

About the Author

More Stories

A Wake-Up Call for Iran

The Left’s Self-Defeating Israel Obsession

Advertisement

Supported by

Britain’s Violent Riots: What We Know

Officials had braced for more unrest on Wednesday, but the night’s anti-immigration protests were smaller, with counterprotesters dominating the streets instead.

• Share full article

By Lynsey Chutel

After days of violent rioting set off by disinformation around a deadly stabbing rampage, the authorities in Britain had been bracing for more unrest on Wednesday. But by nightfall, large-scale anti-immigration demonstrations had not materialized, and only a few arrests had been made nationwide.

Instead, streets in cities across the country were filled with thousands of antiracism protesters, including in Liverpool, where by late evening, the counterdemonstration had taken on an almost celebratory tone.

Over the weekend, the anti-immigration protests, organized by far-right groups, had devolved into violence in more than a dozen towns and cities. And with messages on social media calling for wider protests and counterprotests on Wednesday, the British authorities were on high alert.

With tensions running high, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s cabinet held emergency meetings to discuss what has become the first crisis of his recently elected government. Some 6,000 specialist public-order police officers were mobilized nationwide to respond to any disorder, and the authorities in several cities and towns stepped up patrols.

Wednesday was not trouble-free, however.

In Bristol, the police said there was one arrest after a brick was thrown at a police vehicle and a bottle was thrown. In the southern city of Portsmouth, police officers dispersed a small group of anti-immigration protesters who had blocked a roadway. And in Belfast, Northern Ireland, where there have been at least four nights of unrest, disorder continued, and the police service said it would bring in additional officers.

But overall, many expressed relief that the fears of wide-scale violence had not been realized.

Here’s what we know about the turmoil in Britain.

Where has the unrest taken place?

Protesters over the weekend took to the streets of a dozen cities across Britain, most of them in England. Trouble broke out from Aldershot in the south to Sunderland in the north and Liverpool in the west. Belfast, in Northern Ireland, was also drawn into the fray.

In some cases, the protesters were merely unruly, but in others the violence was more pronounced.

Where arrests have been reported

On Sunday, rioters set upon a hotel that was housing asylum seekers in the town of Rotherham, in northern England, breaking windows before surging inside as the police struggled to control them. No guests were injured in the melee, the police said.

In Middlesbrough, a group of rioters, some masked, hurled bottles and rocks at officers. Cars were set on fire, and at least nine people were arrested. On Saturday, a library and a food bank were set ablaze in Liverpool as groups damaged and looted businesses, and in Hull, fires were set and storefronts smashed in the city center.

Dozens of police officers were injured, including some who required trips to the hospital.

What set off the protests?

The unrest began after a teenager wielding a knife attacked a children’s dance class early last week in the seaside town of Southport, which is near Liverpool. Three children were killed, and eight were wounded.

The suspect was born and raised in Britain, but online rumors soon circulated that he was an undocumented immigrant. To counter those false claims, the authorities took the unusual step of publicly identifying him. The BBC has reported that the suspect’s parents are from Rwanda. The police have not disclosed a motive for the stabbing attack.

But with migration a flashpoint issue in Britain, especially on the far right, the rumors were all it took to set off violence.

Extremist groups urged their followers to take to the streets, and on the day after the stabbings, they began to do so, starting in Southport.

How have the authorities responded?

The weekend riots prompted a heavy police response. Nearly 4,000 additional officers were deployed, a law enforcement association said. And a government order gave officers in some places special powers to disperse any gatherings or “antisocial behavior,” the police said in a statement .

More than 400 people have been arrested, and about 100 have been charged, Mr. Starmer said after an emergency cabinet meeting on Tuesday — the second in two days.

The prime minister, who has characterized the riots as “far-right thuggery,” encouraged prosecutors to name and shame those convicted to dissuade others from joining the violent rampages.

“I’m now expecting substantive sentencing before the end of the week,” Mr. Starmer said. “That should send a very powerful message to anybody involved, either directly or online, that you are likely to be dealt with within a week and that nobody, but nobody, should involve themselves in this disorder.”

BJ Harrington, the head of public order for Britain’s National Police Chiefs’ Council, said that online disinformation had been “a huge driver of this appalling violence.”

Intelligence teams, detectives and neighborhood officers, Mr. Harrington said, were working to identify the people fomenting the violence.

“They won’t win,” he said.

How are the authorities handling online incitement?

Social media has acted as an accelerant throughout the protests, with disinformation fueling far-right and anti-immigrant groups . Britain and other democracies have found that policing the internet is legally murky terrain, with individual rights and free speech protections balanced against a desire to block harmful material .

In his remarks on Tuesday, Mr. Starmer said that some arrests involved people accused of inciting violence online.

The first person to be convicted over online posts since the riots, according to the Crown Prosecution Service , was a 28-year-old man from Leeds who posted messages on Facebook about attacking a hotel that housed asylum seekers. It said that the man, Jordan Parlour, had pleaded guilty and been convicted of using threatening words or behavior to stir up racial hatred.

Mr. Starmer has called out social media companies over misinformation on their platforms, but holding them accountable could be tricky. Britain adopted a law last year that requires social media companies to introduce protections for child safety and to prevent and quickly remove illegal content like terrorism propaganda and revenge pornography. The law is less clear about how companies must treat misinformation and incendiary language.

What are the political implications?

The riots are the first political crisis for Mr. Starmer, who took office a month ago after his Labour Party defeated the Conservatives, who had been in government for 14 years.

While in power, the Conservatives tried to capitalize on public unhappiness over immigration, vowing to reduce it (though failing to do so). But in recent days they joined Labour in condemning the violent protests.

Former Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, now the opposition leader, said the unrest had “nothing to do with the tragedy in Southport.” The police, he said, have “our full support to deal with these criminals swiftly.”

Megan Specia contributed reporting.

Lynsey Chutel covers South Africa and the countries that make up southern Africa from Johannesburg. More about Lynsey Chutel