_____________

                               June 4, 1997
                               _____________


                             GSBCA 13663-RELO


                     In the Matter of JAYME A. NORRIS


     Jayme A. Norris, APO, AE, Claimant.

     Kenneth C. Soderlund, Chief, Household Goods Branch, Claims
and Adjudication Division, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
Indianapolis, IN, appearing for the Department of Defense.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Claimant in this case, Ms. Jayme A. Norris, seeks to recover
$421.65 which has been deducted from her pay.  The deduction was to
satisfy a debt to the United States Government for the transport of
household goods (HHG) in excess of the allowable maximum of 18,000
pounds.  For the reasons set out below, we deny the claim.  

                                Background

     Ms. Norris  claim involves an intra-theater transfer from
Berlin, Germany, to Kaiserlautern, Germany, in late July 1994.  Ms.
Norris elected to ship her belongings at Government expense.  In
preparation for the move, claimant met with an HHG counselor to
plan and arrange for the shipment of her belongings.  At that time
it was suggested to her that, for planing purposes, she should
estimate that the contents of each room would weigh approximately
1000 pounds.  She contends that she had no more than six rooms of
furniture to move but, to eliminate the risk of underestimating the
weight of her shipment, she estimated the weight of that furniture
to be between 10,000 and 12,000 pounds.   

     The Government bill of lading for her HHG shipment indicates
that the authorized weight for the move was to be 18,000 pounds. 
The net weight of the shipment, however, is certified on the bill
as being 19,216 pounds.  In early January 1995, the local military
finance command advised Ms. Norris that she owed $421.55 for the
shipment of 1216 pounds in excess of the maximum allowable limit of
18,000 pounds.  The letter advised that failure to pay within the
specified suspense date would result in a deduction from her pay. 
Ms. Norris promptly advised the finance command informally by
telephone that she disputed the charges.  She was told that any
complaints regarding the charges should be directed to the military
transportation office handling all Berlin accounts.  In a letter to
that office, she indicated her disagreement with figures used and
requested that an inquiry be made into their validity.   

     Ms. Norris failed to respond in writing to the original demand
letter she had received from the local military finance command. 
In the absence of a formal reply within the specified suspense
date, the command directed the supporting civilian personnel office
to deduct the $421.55 from Ms. Norris s pay.  When Ms. Norris
protested the deduction, she was advised by the finance command
that her only recourse at that point in time would be to appeal to
the General Accounting Office (GAO).  By letter dated September 8,
1995, she filed a claim for the refund of the deduction with GAO. 
  

                                Discussion

     Ms. Norris contends that the weight reported by the mover on
the Government bill of lading must be incorrect for two reasons. 
First, it is far in excess of the very conservative estimate she
made originally, which involved almost doubling the rule of thumb
of 1000 pounds per room suggested to her by the HHG counselor. 
Second, approximately one year after her move from Berlin, she
hired a moving company to make a local move of her household goods
to a new location.  At that time, she moved all the household goods
which had been moved the previous year from Berlin plus
approximately 500 additional pounds of newly acquired furniture. 
The weight of this shipment was no more than 12,000 pounds.      
     The 18,000 pound limitation involved in this case is more than
a mere regulatory limit.  It is fixed by statute.  5 U.S.C.
 5724(a)(2) (1994).  A certified net weight, such as that
appearing on the Government bill of lading covering claimant s move
from Berlin to Kaiserlautern, cannot, therefore, be set aside
lightly.  

     In cases such as this, the GAO followed an extremely  strict
standard.  Theoretically, certified weights recorded for the
movement of household goods can be rebutted.  Nevertheless, the
burden of proving that they are incorrect or fraudulent is an
exceedingly heavy one and rests solely on the claimant. 
Traditionally, the GAO did not disturb agency determinations of net
weight of an employee s household goods shipment in the absence of
clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud.  Captain Eric W.
Burch, B-258964 (July 12, 1995); Major Joel L. Bennett, B-251159
(March 16, 1993).  Furthermore, the GAO held that, as a general
rule, neither estimates by drivers, packers, inspectors, or owners,
nor comparisons of the weight of a questioned move to prior and
subsequent moves are sufficient to invalidate a weight certificate. 
Major James S. True, B-206961 (July 12, 1982).  We consider this
strict standard adopted by the GAO to be a prudent one, especially
in view of the specific statutory restriction on weight allowance
reimbursement for relocating Government employees.  We, therefore, 
follow it.

     The evidence presented by claimant in this case clearly falls
short of this rigorous standard.  For this reason, the claim is
denied.  



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge