________________

                              March 11, 1997
                             ________________


                             GSBCA 13852-RELO


                    In the Matter of WALLACE M. HOPKINS


    Wallace M. Hopkins, Amarillo, TX, Claimant.

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

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

    The claimant, Wallace M. Hopkins, an employee of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, seeks reimbursement for use of a
second privately owned automobile, driven by his wife, during a
change in permanent duty stations.  The agency authorized
reimbursement for use of a second privately owned vehicle on the
basis of the employee and his wife moving separately.  When the
claim revealed that the two traveled at the same time, and Mr.
Hopkins did not sufficiently substantiate the need for two
vehicles, the agency treated the reimbursement as unallowable under
applicable regulations.  Mr. Hopkins has failed to demonstrate that
reimbursement is permitted.

    Because of a permanent change of station (PCS), Mr. Hopkins
and his family relocated from Waco to Amarillo, Texas.  In the
relocation, the family used two privately owned vehicles while
travelling at the same time.  Mr. Hopkins explains the use of two
vehicles, "because there were three family members, one dog,
several personal belongings, some of which are irreplaceable and
could not be transported in the moving van, and one vehicle was
towing an antique car.  Shipment of some of the irreplaceable
personal belongings and the antique car would be too expensive due
to the need for special handling, packing, insurance, and
shipment."

    The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which governs
reimbursement for the subject relocation, explicitly addresses use
of a privately owned automobile in connection with a permanent
change of station.  41 CFR 302-2.3 (1996).  In particular, 

    Use of no more than one privately owned automobile is
    authorized under this part as being advantageous to the
    Government in connection with permanent change of station
    travel except under the following [five] special
    circumstances, when use of more than one privately owned
    automobile may be authorized:

         (i)  If there are more members of the immediate
    family than reasonably can be transported with luggage in
    one vehicle[.]

41 CFR 302-2.3(e).  The four remaining circumstances relate to age
or physical conditions of a member of the immediate family and to
different departure dates for the employee and members of the
immediate family.

    The agency notified Mr. Hopkins of why it was reimbursing him
for one vehicle, not two:

    Your travel authority authorized separate travel for your
    dependents.  Since you did not travel separately
    suspension is made pending a determination by your
    authorizing official whether use of a second car, as
    claimed, is advantageous to the Government.  41 CFR 302-
    2.3(e).  That determination should include consideration
    of the number of family members traveling, the amount of
    personal belongings transported, and the size of the
    vehicles occupied.  Use of a second vehicle may not be
    justified on the basis of a general statement that the
    vehicles were used to transport personal belongings.  

    In relevant part, Mr. Hopkins states in response:

    Shipment of irreplaceable personal belongings and the
    towing of an antique car would have required special
    crating, packaging and handling done by myself which, I
    feel was a large savings to our Nation[']s tax payers.

The submission fails to address the particulars raised by the
agency--the quantity of personal belongings transported and the
size of the vehicles.  Mr. Hopkins attempts to justify the use of
the second vehicle as advantageous to the Government because his
movement of personal belongings and antique car saved money.  The
analysis merely serves to demonstrate that use of two vehicles was
advantageous to the claimant; it does not demonstrate any
impropriety in the agency's conclusion, which is supported by
General Accounting Office interpretations, referenced by the
agency, of the regulation at issue:

         Our decisions have held that where the number of
    occupants and the accompanying luggage justify the use of
    two privately owned vehicles . . .  the employee may be
    reimbursed mileage for two vehicles.  We have denied
    reimbursement only in situations where the employee could
    not demonstrate that the number of occupants and the
    quantity of personal belongings could not have traveled
    in one vehicle.

Theresa Z. Pierce, B-234968 (Sept. 7, 1989) (citations omitted);
Donald F. Daly, B-209873 (July 6, 1983) ("The explanation that a
quantity of personal belongings were transported in one or both
vehicles is not sufficient to permit payment on the basis that both
vehicles were necessary for the transportation of the employee and
his wife.").

    The agency expressly put Mr. Hopkins on notice of the
information it needed in order to conclude that reimbursement is
permissible under the regulation.  Mr. Hopkins has not demonstrated
that his situation falls within any of the enumerated
circumstances.  Thus, the agency may only reimburse Mr. Hopkins as
it did, pursuant to 41 CFR 302-2.3(e)(3).



                                    ____________________________
                                         JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                         Board Judge