______________________________

                             October 15, 1997
                      ______________________________


                             GSBCA 14193-RELO


                     In the Matter of NANCY K. RODGICK


     Nancy K. Rodgick, Ridgecrest, CA, Claimant.

     Ginger Quezada, Head, Payroll/Travel Branch, Customer Services
Division, Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division, Department of
the Navy, China Lake, CA; and Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for
Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     An employee made a house hunting trip in anticipation of
making a permanent change of station.  The agency appropriately
reimbursed the employee for her use of a privately owned vehicle by
paying a mileage allowance.  The agency reasonably exercised its
discretion when it decided not to authorize the employee to rent a
car while she was on the house hunting trip, and properly
determined not to pay several other miscellaneous expenses incurred
by the employee during the trip.  

                                Background

     In 1996, Nancy Rodgick was employed by the Department of the
Navy (Navy) at China Lake, California.  On March 26, 1996, the Navy
notified Ms. Rodgick that her employment would be terminated on
July 31, 1996, pursuant to a reduction in force.  On July 15, 1996,
the personnel office at Fort Carson, Colorado, sent a position
description to the personnel office at China Lake.  Fort Carson
asked China Lake to check Ms. Rodgick s qualifications and to
extend an offer to her, if she was qualified for the position.  On
July 16, 1996, China Lake told Fort Carson that Ms. Rodgick was
qualified for the position in Fort Carson.  Although the record is
not entirely clear, it appears that China Lake told Ms. Rodgick
that she had been offered the position in Fort Carson.

     On July 17, 1996, Fort Carson challenged China Lake s
determination that Ms. Rodgick was qualified for the position in
Fort Carson.  China Lake did not learn of this challenge until
sometime the following week.

     Believing that Ms. Rodgick would be moving to Fort Carson,
China Lake authorized Ms. Rodgick and her husband to travel to Fort
Carson in their privately owned vehicle (POV) for a house hunting
trip, and to return to China Lake by air carrier.  The travel
authorization, dated July 19, stated that the round trip travel
would not exceed ten calendar days, including travel time.  The
authorization did not state that Ms. Rodgick could rent a car at
Government expense while house hunting in Fort Carson.  

     On July 21, 1996, Ms. Rodgick and her husband left California
in their POV for Colorado.  They arrived in Colorado Springs on
July 23, rented a car, and put their POV and some unidentified
personal items into storage.  The next day, July 24, they went
house hunting.  On July 25, Ms. Rodgick and her husband learned
from the Fort Carson personnel office that Fort Carson was
challenging China Lake s decision concerning her qualifications for
the position in Fort Carson.  The China Lake personnel office told
Ms. Rodgick to return to China Lake by July 31.  

     Ms. Rodgick took her POV to be inspected before driving it
back to California, and learned that the vehicle needed some
repairs in order to make the return trip.  According to
Ms. Rodgick, China Lake told her to have the vehicle repaired and
to return to China Lake, because the personnel office believed that
it had found a position for Ms. Rodgick there.  According to
Ms. Rodgick s husband, China Lake told Ms. Rodgick that the
expenses of the return trip, including the repairs to the POV,
should be charged to Ms. Rodgick s government-issued credit card,
because the expenses would be considered travel expenses.  The Navy
says that officials at China Lake did not authorize Ms. Rodgick to
incur any expenses beyond those stated on her travel authorization.


     On July 26 or 27, Ms. Rodgick went to pick up her POV from the
repair shop.  The issuer of the government-issued credit card would
not permit the shop to charge its work to the card, so Ms. Rodgick
charged the repairs to her personal credit card.  On July 27,
Ms. Rodgick returned the rental car and she and her husband left
for California.  On July 28, while in Arizona, their POV began
leaking transmission fluid and they called a tow truck to take them
to Flagstaff, Arizona, eighty-seven miles away.  Ms. Rodgick and
her husband spent the night of July 28 in Flagstaff, Arizona.  

     On July 29, Ms. Rodgick s husband learned that their POV
needed to have its transmission repaired or replaced.  Because
repairing the transmission would take three or four days and
replacing the transmission would take only one day, and because
China Lake told Ms. Rodgick to return by July 31, Ms. Rodgick
decided to have the transmission replaced.  Ms. Rodgick rented a
car to use while she and her husband were in Flagstaff.  

     On July 30, Ms. Rodgick s POV was ready.  Again, the issuer of
the government-issued charge card would not permit the repair shop
to charge its work to the card, so Ms. Rodgick charged the repairs
to her personal credit card.  That morning, she and her husband
left Flagstaff for California.  

     On July 31, Ms. Rodgick reported for duty at China Lake. 
China Lake s personnel office told Ms. Rodgick that it was not sure
what expenses would be reimbursed by the agency.  After Ms. Rodgick
returned to China Lake, the Navy amended Ms. Rodgick s travel
orders to authorize her to return to China Lake by using a POV, and
to cancel the authorization for travel by air carrier.  

     On August 16, 1996, Ms. Rodgick submitted a claim to the Navy
and asked to be reimbursed for certain expenses.  The Navy
reimbursed Ms. Rodgick for some automated teller machine expenses,
for per diem expenses at a rate of $66 per day, $351.22 for POV
expenses for 2,066 miles at seventeen cents per mile, and for the
rental car and gasoline expenses incurred in Flagstaff.  The Navy
did not reimburse Ms. Rodgick for the following expenses:

     $  137.47 Car rental in Fort Carson
         28.20 Gas for car in Fort Carson
         64.00 Tips and laundry
         32.00 Storage for personal items
        247.50 Towing for POV
        374.85 Gasoline for entire trip using POV
         40.21 Oil/storage of POV
      2,018.70 Repairs to POV

     Ms. Rodgick asks us to review the agency s decision to deny
her reimbursement of these items.  In addition, Ms. Rodgick asks
that we direct the agency to reimburse her for several items that
she did not request in her claim.  She asks to be reimbursed at the
per diem rate in effect for Fort Carson/Colorado Springs, Colorado,
which she says was $84 per day.  In addition, she asks that the
agency reimburse her for the interest charges she incurred when she
used her personal credit card during the trip between California
and Colorado, and for long distance telephone calls made during the
trip.

                                Discussion

     When an employee will make a permanent change of duty station,
the agency may pay per diem allowances and travel and
transportation expenses for the employee to make a trip to the new
duty station in order to look for a residence there.  5 U.S.C.
 5724a (1994); 41 CFR ch. 302-4 (1996); JTR C4107.  The Navy
reasonably exercised its discretion when it decided not to
authorize Ms. Rodgick to rent a car while she was on her house
hunting trip, and so we will not grant Ms. Rodgick's claim for the
amount she spent to rent a car in Fort Carson.  The Navy is not
permitted by statute or regulation to pay Ms. Rodgick the remaining
amounts that she claims, and so we deny the remainder of her claim.

     Ms. Rodgick's travel orders were required to state the modes
of transportation that were authorized by the Navy.  JTR C4107-H. 
The mode of transportation authorized for travel to Fort Carson was
Ms. Rodgick's POV, and the travel orders issued by the Navy did not
authorize Ms. Rodgick to rent a car in Fort Carson.  The Navy was
supposed to reimburse Ms. Rodgick for reasonable expenses for local
transportation during her house hunting trip to Fort Carson and
could have authorized Ms. Rodgick to rent a car, so long as the use
of a rental car was "consistent with the mode of transportation
authorized for travel to and from the new official station."  41
CFR 302-4.2 (1996); JTR C4107-E, C4107-G.  The Navy could
legitimately conclude that authorizing a rental car would not be
"consistent" with authorizing the use of a POV, because the Navy
paid for Ms. Rodgick to take her POV to Fort Carson, and
Ms. Rodgick had her POV available and could have used it to go
house hunting.  The Navy's decision not to authorize Ms. Rodgick to
use a rental car in Fort Carson was a reasonable exercise of its
discretion.  

     The Navy made per diem payments to Ms. Rodgick, and tips and
laundry are part of per diem payments.  41 CFR 301-7.1(c)(2)-(3),
302-4.3(b), 302-2.1.  Ms. Rodgick is not entitled to be paid any
additional amounts for tips and laundry.  

     There is no statutory or regulatory authority that would
permit the Navy to reimburse Ms. Rodgick for the amount she paid to
store personal items during her house hunting trip.  A house
hunting trip is limited to ten calendar days, and no statute or
regulation contemplates that an employee will incur any storage
charges during that time.  41 CFR 302-4.2.  The Navy correctly
denied Ms. Rodgick's claim for these charges.

     The Navy paid Ms. Rodgick a mileage allowance of seventeen
cents per mile for the use of her POV, as permitted by applicable
regulations.  41 CFR 302-4.2, 302-2.3(b); JTR C4107-E, C4250. 
According to the controlling statute, a mileage allowance is paid
instead of the actual expenses incurred when an employee uses a
POV.  5 U.S.C.  5704(a)(1) (1994).  Because the mileage allowance
is a substitute for reimbursement of the actual expenses that
Ms. Rodgick incurred, the Navy correctly determined that it could
not reimburse her for the costs she claims for towing, gasoline,
oil and storage, and repairs.

     Before we can consider whether Ms. Rodgick can be paid the per
diem allowance for Fort Carson and can be reimbursed for credit
card interest and telephone calls, she must first present the Navy
with a claim for these allowances and expenses.  If Ms. Rodgick
disagrees with the Navy's decision, then she may ask for our
review.  Rule 401(c).

     The claim is denied.




                                   _______________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge