________________________________________

                              January 6, 1997
                 ________________________________________


                             GSBCA 13645-RELO


                    In the Matter of HOWARD L. TRICKEY


     Howard L. Trickey of Kaneohe, HI, Claimant.

     Deborah Osipchak, Manager, Financial Services Branch, Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for the
Department of Transportation.

BORWICK, Board Judge. 

     Mr. Howard L. Trickey (claimant) is a retired employee of the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who challenges the FAA's
deduction of $3,951.47 from his lump sum payment (for unused annual
leave) upon his retirement.  Claimant appealed the deduction to the
General Accounting Office (GAO). The FAA took the deduction
because claimant refused to pay freight insurance premiums and
moving costs covering his relocation from California to Tokyo,
Japan, in April 1985.  Mr. Trickey refused to pay the premiums
because the insurance company declined to cover losses from alleged
theft of household goods by the moving company's employees during
his move.  We conclude that claimant is not entitled to refund of
the amounts deducted.  

     Preparing for his move, claimant purchased additional
liability insurance--coverage beyond that offered to the employee
by the FAA for free--at a cost of $1,500.  The shipper presented
bill number 86-0206, for that amount, noting that "the employee is
responsible for the cost of additional insurance."  Claimant also
(1) purchased additional insurance--at a cost of $49.50--for items
moved from his home in California and placed in storage, (2)
incurred $59.40 for valuation insurance for the time the goods
remained in storage and (3) incurred $319 for the moving company's
services in assisting claimant's spouse in sorting personal
belongings before the move.  These three charges were covered by
the shipper's bill 85-1232, which notes that these services were
the responsibility of the employee.

     In regard to the charge for $319, the record shows that
claimant ordered the sorting service at the suggestion of the
moving company.  The movers spent three and one-half hours for
packing labor on the day of the move at twenty-nine dollars per
hour and eleven hours at the same rate for sorting services.  The
moving company sorted the household goods several days before the
scheduled packing day.  

     After delivery of his household goods to Japan, claimant found
that certain household items--cameras, an expensive watch, video
tapes, leather boots, and other valuables--were missing.  Claimant
blamed the loss on theft by moving company employees.  He estimated
that his loss amounted to $4,719 and, on August 23, 1985, he filed
a claim for the value of the missing goods both with the insurance
company and the moving company.  On March 24, 1986, the FAA advised
claimant that he had not reimbursed the FAA for the amounts due on
bill numbers 85-1232 and 86-0206 and warned him that interest and
delinquent charges would accrue.  The agency had declined to charge
claimant interest on bill number 85-1232 because of his outstanding
claim against the moving company.  The agency, however, warned
claimant that he should pay the bills before it began assessing
interest and delinquency charges. 

     In response, on April 6, 1986, claimant maintained that he
filed a claim against the FAA to recover the losses the insurance
company refused to pay and that "the FAA should pay for some part
of the insurance."  He did, however, send $500 as partial payment
for the insurance.  Claimant argued that the $319 charge was
erroneous, since the moving company had charged for sorting, when
the moving company packed, which was an included service, not an
extra.  By letter of June 26, claimant advised the FAA that he was
attempting to settle his claims with the insurance and moving
companies, and that after the settlement, he would "finalize his
claim against the FAA."  He refused to accept the bills for the
sorting as fraudulent and professed confusion as to the charges for
the excess insurance.   

     On July 21, the insurance company rejected Howard Trickey's
loss claim because: (1) no exceptions were taken for the missing
items at the time of delivery of the household goods in Japan, (2)
the alleged missing items were not listed as valuable items covered
by insurance, and (3) the expensive watch, by Mr. Trickey's
admission, was missing before the insurance was requested.  On July
29, 1986, the agency explained to claimant the basis for the
disputed charges. 

     On June 29, 1993, upon claimant's separation from federal
service, the agency deducted $3,951.47 from claimant's lump sum
payment to collect the debt.  The elements of the deduction were as
follows:

     Bill 85-1232

     Storage insurance        $49.50
     Extra labor              319.00
     Valuation insurance       59.40
     Subtotal                 427.90
     Interest                 304.11
     Penalty &              1,230.90
     Administrative Charge  
     Total                              $1,962.91

     Bill 86-0206
     Additional liability  $1,500.00
     insurance
     Payment received        (500.00)
     Interest                 747.43
     Penalty &                241.13
     Administrative Charge    

     Total                              $1,988.56

     Claimant alleges that he suffered uncompensated losses and
that the penalty, administrative and interest charges were
excessive.  

     Applicable Department of Transportation regulation provides
that excess insurance for relocation is the employee's responsibil-
ity: "An employee may declare a valuation above the minimum
permitted if he/she assumes all additional expenses resulting
therefrom, including the cost of insurance needed to protect the
higher valuation."  DOT 1500.6A (e)(3).  Claimant purchased the
additional insurance, and the premiums for that insurance are his
responsibility.  The $319 charge was clearly stated on the bill to
be for sorting of household goods, not for packing.  The service
clearly was special, coming as it did several days before the
scheduled packing move; it was claimant's responsibility, there-
fore, to determine whether this was an extra charge before he
ordered the service.  Claimant has not demonstrated that the moving
company erroneously charged for this service.  

     Claimant maintains that the penalty and administrative charges
were excessive.  Statute requires executive agencies to  charge (1)
a minimum annual rate of interest on an outstanding debt, (2) a
charge to cover the cost of processing and handling delinquent
claims, and (3) a penalty charge of not more than six percent a
year for failure to pay a part of a debt more then ninety days past
due.  31 U.S.C.A.  3717(a)(1), (e)(1)-(2) (1993).  The rate of
interest is the rate of the current value of funds to the United
States Treasury, and accrues from the date on which the debtor is
notified of the debt and interest requirements.  4 CFR 102.13(b),
(c). The administrative cost is based either on the actual costs
incurred in collecting the particular claim, or upon cost analyses
establishing an average of actual additional costs incurred by the
agency in processing claims against other debtors in similar stages
of delinquency.  4 CFR 102.13(d).  Claimant has not established
that the agency mis-applied the statute or applicable regulation. 

 

                              __________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge