Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405
                         
                  ______________________________

                           May 21, 1997
                  ______________________________


                         GSBCA 13798-RELO


                In the Matter of BRIAN P. GARRIFFA


     Brian P. Garriffa, San Antonio, TX, Claimant.

     Al LaBombard, Chief, Employee Accounts Division, Veterans
Affairs Finance Center, Austin, TX, appearing for Department of
Veterans Affairs.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Brian P. Garriffa, an employee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), requests review of the VA's disapproval of
his claim for reimbursement of certain expenses incurred in
connection with his permanent change of station from Anchorage,
Alaska to San Antonio, Texas.

     Claimant moved from Anchorage to accept a position at the
Audie L. Murphy Medical Center in San Antonio.  The transfer was
for the convenience of the Government.  After his travel
authorization was revised several times, claimant was told by his
immediate supervisors to report for duty in San Antonio in one
week.  This did not leave Mr. Garriffa sufficient time to drive his
privately owned vehicle from Alaska to Texas.  Mr. Garriffa
requested that the reporting date be extended for approximately two
weeks, but his request was denied.

     Given the time constraints, claimant decided first to have his
spouse, who planned to join him in Texas several months later, try
to sell the vehicle; if the car did not sell, it would be shipped
to Texas.  His immediate supervisors assured him that there would
be no problem with reimbursement of shipping costs for the vehicle. 
Mr. Garriffa flew to San Antonio and reported for duty as directed. 
He rented an automobile for local transportation and for purposes
of house hunting in his off duty hours.  Meanwhile, his spouse had
been unable to sell the car quickly, so he decided to have it
shipped, since the rental car was becoming unaffordable. 

     Mr. Garriffa claimed the cost of shipping his vehicle from
Alaska to Texas ($1,846.90) and the cost of car rental ($687.74)
for the thirty day period it took to ship his vehicle from Alaska
to San Antonio.  The VA Finance Center determined that these
expenses were not authorized under the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR) and declined to pay them.  The Finance Center explained that
the pertinent regulation does not permit reimbursement of shipping
costs for a privately owned vehicle unless it is a vehicle which
had previously been shipped to Alaska.  Claimant was not
transferred to Alaska by the Government and had purchased his car
in Alaska when he moved there.  A rental car had not been
authorized, so this expense was also denied.  

     With respect to shipment of a privately owned automobile, at
government expense, from a point outside the continental United
States (which includes Alaska) to a new duty station within the
continental United States, under statute, 5 U.S.C.   5727(b)
(1994), and the implementing regulation in the FTR, eligibility for
shipment of vehicles is expressly limited to vehicles which
originally were shipped from the United States to the duty station
outside the continental United States.  41 CFR 302-10.3(b) (1995). 
Since Mr. Garriffa's car was purchased in Alaska, there is no
regulatory authority that permits the VA to pay for the cost of
shipping the vehicle to San Antonio.  See Daniel W. Krieber, B-
229191 (Aug. 17, 1988). 

     Mr. Garriffa, in requesting that this claim be reviewed,
explains that he understands that the regulations would not
ordinarily allow for payment of the shipping costs for his
automobile, but he feels that an exception should be made in his
circumstances, where there was no time for him to exercise the
option to drive the car to San Antonio, and he was assured that
shipping costs would be reimbursed.  Absent a statutory or
regulatory provision allowing for reimbursement of a particular
relocation expense, however, neither the agency nor the Board may
authorize its payment, despite the fact that an employee may have
incurred costs in good faith reliance on erroneous advice.  See,
e.g., Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA   28,688, at
143,294 (1996) (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond,
496 U.S. 414 (1990); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332
U.S. 380 (1947)). 

     With respect to the rental car expenses, Mr. Garriffa notes
that a rental car could be authorized for house-hunting, and that
he in fact used the rental car for house-hunting during the period
he was in temporary quarters in San Antonio awaiting the arrival of
his privately owned automobile.  The regulatory provision
permitting authorization of a rental car for house-hunting,
however, is limited to a house-hunting trip in advance of actually
relocating and does not apply where the employee has already
reported for duty at the new station.  See 41 CFR 302-4.1 to 4.2. 
Once the employee has reported for duty at the new official
station, and is receiving temporary quarters and subsistence
expenses, local transportation may not be authorized for any
purpose.  41 CFR 302-5.4(a); Thomas S. Ward, GSBCA 13825-RELO (Apr.
18, 1997).  

     Accordingly, under applicable provisions of the FTR, we have
no authority to permit reimbursement of these expenses.





                                   _____________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge