March 31, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 13823-RELO


                     In the Matter of JOSEPH A. CURTIS


     Joseph A. Curtis, APO Area Europe, Claimant.

     Elizabeth B. Throckmorton, Chief, Policy and Program
Development Division, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Department of the Army, Alexandria,
VA, appearing for Department of the Army.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Joseph A. Curtis, a civilian employee of the Department of the
Army, incurred various expenses as a result of actions he took
subsequent to receipt of permanent change of station orders. 
Later, the orders were canceled.  The Army seeks assistance in
securing reimbursement for Mr. Curtis.

     Mr. Curtis was working for the Army in Lichtenfelds, Germany,
in 1995.  On or about June 2 of that year, he received an offer of
employment for a position with the Department of the Navy in
Gulfport, Mississippi.  He accepted the offer and was given a
reporting date of July 24.  Orders for the move were written and
approved.

     After receiving the orders, Mr. Curtis shipped his car and
motorcycle to Gulfport at his own expense.  His wife resigned her
job.  His household goods were packed and picked up, and he and his
wife moved from their apartment into temporary quarters.

     Then on July 7, the Army informed Mr. Curtis that he had been
found to be not well qualified for the job in Gulfport, and that he
would retain his position in Germany.  Orders canceling the earlier
ones were issued on August 24.

     Mr. Curtis incurred several expenses which the Army agrees
were made in good faith on the basis of a reasonable expectation
that he would be transferred to Gulfport: $933 to ship his car to
the United States; additional costs to ship his motorcycle to the
States; $195 to store his car and motorcycle; $2,032 in airfare for
his wife and himself to pick up this car in Houston (and another
one in Terre Haute, Indiana) and return to Germany; and travel
costs from Houston to Terre Haute.  In addition, the Army agrees
that the Government's actions have caused the family to lose the
income which Mrs. Curtis would have earned had she not quit her
job, and to pay costs involved in finding another apartment.

     The Army believes that none of these costs is compensable
under the statutes and regulations dealing with transfers of
Government employees from one permanent duty station to another. 
We agree.  In particular, we note that the overseas shipment of a
privately-owned motor vehicle was expressly not authorized in the
original travel orders.

     The agency asks, however, that Mr. Curtis' claim be referred
to Congress under the Meritorious Claims Act.  This Act is the name
popularly given to 31 U.S.C.  3702(d), which now reads: "The
official responsible under subsection (a) for settling the claim
shall report to Congress on a claim against the Government that is
timely presented under this section that may not be adjusted by
using an existing appropriation, and that the official believes
Congress should consider for legal or equitable reasons.  The
report shall include recommendations of the official."  Pub. L. No.
104-316,  202(n), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996).  The Administrator
of General Services is "the official responsible under subsection
(a)" of 31 U.S.C.  3702 for settling claims of or against the
United States Government which involve expenses incurred by federal
civilian employees for relocation incident to transfers of official
duty station.  Id.  The Administrator has delegated to this Board
the authority to settle the claims themselves, but not his
responsibilities under the Meritorious Claims Act.  William
Archilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO (Jan. 23, 1997).  We therefore must pass
along the Army's request to the Administrator.

     We regret that resolution of this matter is being deferred. 
The file has been misaddressed twice, first by the Army and then by
the General Accounting Office (GAO).  The Army sent it to GAO,
which since July 1, 1996, has had no authority to settle claims of
or against the Government.  Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,
1996, Pub. L. No. 104-53,  211, 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995).  GAO
sent the case to us rather than to the Administrator.  We recite
this history here in the hopes that in so doing, we will alert
agency officials who consider certain claims suitable for treatment
under the Meritorious Claims Act to send those claims to the
appropriate place.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge