_________________________

                             December 20, 1996
                         _________________________


                             GSBCA 13726-RELO


                    In the Matter of EVANTI V. COLLINS


     Evanti V. Collins, Tulsa, OK, Claimant.

     Earl T. Payne, Civilian Personnel Management Service,
Department of Defense, Falls Church, VA; and Lilly James, Army
Transportation Office, Department of Defense, Ft. Lee, VA,
appearing for Department of Defense.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     Claimant, a former commissary management specialist is seeking
reimbursement for fees for temporary storage of her household goods
in Virginia following an overseas assignment.  Claimant also
requests that the Government reimburse her for moving those
household goods from Virginia to Oklahoma and for any damage or
loss which may occur in shipment.  For the reasons stated below, we
deny the claim.

                                Background

     In approximately November 1988, claimant accepted an overseas
assignment as a commissary management specialist in Giessen,
Germany, for a thirty-six month period.  On October 30, 1990,
claimant requested an early release from that assignment and asked
that she be authorized to return to the Directorate of Commissary
Management Headquarters Troop Support, Ft. Lee, Virginia.  On
February 1, 1991, claimant's request for early release was granted
with an effective release date of May 6, 1991.  Subsequently, at
claimant's request, the release date was extended until June 7,
1991.

     On April 10, 1991, the chief of the Technical Services
Division, Giessen MILCOM, CPO, Giessen, Germany, issued a Request
and Authorization for DOD Civilian Permanent Duty Travel, Form
DD 1614, to claimant.  This authorized transportation for claimant
and her two dependents from Germany to her "new official duty
station and location," stated to be Southeast Commissary Region,
Ft. Lee, Virginia.  Shipment of claimant's household goods and
temporary storage of household goods for ninety days were also
authorized.  The entry blocks on the Form DD 1614 referencing
travel to an alternate destination or shipment of household goods
to an alternate destination were marked N/A, not applicable.

     On approximately June 7, 1991, claimant reported to the U.S.
Army Troop Support Agency in Ft. Lee, Virginia.  Shortly thereafter
her household goods arrived from Germany and were placed in storage
at government expense for the ninety-day period ending on
September 10, 1991.

     On July 10, 1991, claimant was notified of her separation due
to a reduction in force (RIF) and transfer of function with an
effective date of October 6, 1991.  Specifically, claimant was
advised:

     Due to your relative retention standing, we are unable to
     make you a position offer of continuing employment at
     this time.  We will continue placement efforts in your
     behalf.  However, if we cannot make you an offer prior to
     the end of the notice period, we must terminate your
     employment in accordance with RIF procedures effective
     October 5, 1991.

Claimant was further advised that she was entitled to registration
in the DOD priority placement program for one year, registration in
the Office of Personnel Management's displaced employee program,
placement on a local reemployment priority list, and severance pay.

     On August 17, 1991, over a month prior to her separation date,
claimant voluntarily resigned from her position.  Claimant decided
to pursue an education in the evangelistic and missions field at
Oral Roberts University School of Divinity and Theology in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.  Claimant was advised that storage charges for her
household goods for September would be $254.85 and that shipment of
her household goods to Tulsa, Oklahoma, would cost $2,291.85.  The
transportation office at Ft. Lee advised claimant to request an
extension of the ninety-day storage authorization for her household
goods.  Id.  On September 10, 1991, claimant requested such an
extension.  Id.

     On September 24, 1991, claimant's request for an extension of
time for temporary storage of household goods was denied.  The
letter from the commanding officer of the U.S. Troop Support Agency
stated, in pertinent part:

     I have been advised that you resigned your position on
     August 17, 1991, after receiving notice of separation due
     to reduction in force/transfer of function.  Because of
     your decision to resign your position I cannot find any
     regulatory basis to grant an extension beyond the
     original 90 days, ending September 10, 1991.

     Since claimant could not afford to move her household goods to
Tulsa at the time of her relocation, she continued to incur storage
fees for September and October 1991 totalling $509.07.  She then
requested that the household goods be delivered to a different
storage company which reduced the monthly cost.  In November 1991,
a portion of claimant's household goods was shipped to her
residence in Tulsa, but certain of her household goods still remain
in storage in Virginia.  Claimant requests that the Government now
move those household goods from Virginia to Tulsa, reimburse her
for storage fees up until the present in the amount of $3,561.90,
and reimburse her for any loss or damage which may occur during
shipment.

     On August 13, 1994, claimant sought this reimbursement from
the Office of Personnel Management, but claimant was advised to
submit her request to the Defense Civilian Personnel Management
Service.  On September 26, 1994, the Associate Director for
Operations, Department of Defense, Civilian Personnel Management
Service, denied claimant's request, stating:

     [Department of Defense] civilian employees are covered by
     provision of the Joint Travel Regulations . . . .  When
     an employee completes a tour overseas, or is released
     from the tour as you were, that employee is entitled [to
     have] his or her household goods shipped to the new duty
     location.  The employee may elect to have the goods
     shipped to an alternate location provided the cost to the
     government is equal to or less than the cost of shipping
     to the new duty location.  The employee is entitled to
     only one shipment for the PCS move.

     When the household goods arrive at the new duty station,
     the government will store them temporarily for a period
     of up to 90 days and then deliver them to the employee's
     home.  Employees may have their goods stored for an
     additional 90 days under certain circumstances which have
     already been explained to you.

     You used your entitlement to ship your goods to Ft.
     Lee[,] VA and the government placed them in temporary
     storage.  When you resigned, the government no longer had
     any legal authority to continue to store your goods [or]
     to move them to another location.

     On June 11, 1996, claimant filed the instant claim with the
General Accounting Office, and, pursuant to a statutory transfer of
functions, claimant's claim was reassigned to this Board on
July 17, 1996.

                                Discussion

     We first address claimant's request that her household goods
be shipped from Virginia to Tulsa, incident to her relocation from
Germany.  Reimbursement of travel and transportation expenses
incurred by an employee upon return from an overseas post of duty
is permitted under 5 U.S.C.  5722 (1994).  Section 5722(a)(2)
authorizes an agency to pay the expenses of transporting household
goods from a post of duty outside the continental United States to
the place of the employee's actual residence.  The Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR), which implements this statute, expands slightly
on this authorization:

     Origin and destination.  Cost of transportation of
     household goods may be paid by the Government whether the
     shipment originates at the employee's last official
     station or place of residence or at some other point,
     . . . .  Similarly, these expenses are allowable whether
     the point of destination is the new official station or
     some other point selected by the employee, or if the
     destination for part of the property is the new official
     station and the remainder is shipped to one or more other
     points.  However, the total amount which may be paid or
     reimbursed by the Government shall not exceed the cost of
     transporting the property in one lot by the most
     economical route from the last official station of the
     transferring employee (or the place of actual residence
     of the new appointee at time of appointment) to the new
     official station. . . .

41 CFR 302-8.2(e).

     Here, claimant requested that her household goods be shipped
from Germany to Ft. Lee, Virginia.  The Government paid for such
shipment.  Claimant reported back to Ft. Lee, Virginia, on
approximately June 7, 1991.  It was not until some two months later
that claimant decided to resign from her position, leave Ft. Lee, 
and move to Tulsa, Oklahoma.

     Claimant argues: "a residence was never established in
Virginia due to RIF proceedings.  The only residence acquired after
return from EURCOR was in Tulsa, Oklahoma, on August 19, 1991." 
This argument ignores the facts of record as documented by Form DD
1614.  Claimant's travel orders expressly authorized shipment of
household goods to Ft. Lee, Virginia, and noted that an alternate
destination was "N/A."  The Government paid to ship claimant's
household goods from Europe back to the location designated by
claimant in the continental United States at the time of her
transfer.  Simply because claimant chose to leave Ft. Lee and move
to Tulsa some two months later, she is not entitled to have the
Government pay for yet another move of her household goods.

     Nor has claimant established entitlement to reimbursement for
storage of her household goods for a period beyond ninety days. 
The FTR, at 41 CFR 302-8.2(d), provides:

     Temporary storage time limit.  The time allowable for
     temporary storage in connection with an authorized
     shipment of household goods shall not exceed a period of
     90 days.  . . .  However, upon an employee's written
     request, the initial 90-day period may be extended an
     additional period not to exceed 90 days under certain
     conditions if approved by the agency head or his/her
     designee.  Justification for an additional storage period
     may include, but is not limited to, the following
     reasons:

          (1)  An intervening temporary duty or long-term
     training assignment;

          (2)  Nonavailability of suitable housing;

          (3)  Completion of residence under construction;

          (4)  Serious illness of employee or illness or death
     of a dependent; or

          (5)  Strikes, acts of God, or other circumstances
     beyond the control of the employee.

     Claimant appears to believe that because she had not
established a residence in Ft. Lee, Virginia, at the end of the
ninety-day storage period, she is entitled to an extension. 
Claimant charges the Troop Support Agency and Ft. Lee
transportation officials with "negligence" for failing to properly
advise her regarding her entitlement to reimbursement for storage
and shipment of her household goods.

     Because claimant did not request an extension of her storage
benefits until after she had voluntarily resigned from her
position, the commanding officer believed that there was no
regulatory basis to grant claimant an extension beyond the original
ninety days.  By the express terms of the regulation, such
extensions are discretionary, not mandatory.   Claimant has not
demonstrated that the commanding officer abused his discretion in
denying the extension.  To the contrary, the commanding officer
acted properly in denying claimant's request for an extension since
claimant had already voluntarily separated, and her request did not
reference sufficient extenuating circumstances or justifications
warranting an extension.

     In sum, claimant has not established any basis for her claim
of entitlement for transportation of household goods from Ft. Lee
to Tulsa, Oklahoma, or for reimbursement for storage of her
household goods beyond September 10, 1991.  The claim is denied.



                                   __________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge