________________________________________ February 19, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 13679-RELO, 13859-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES A. MILLER Charles A. Miller, Ellenwood, GA, Claimant. G. A. Terrill, Director for Finance and Accounting Policy Implementation, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for the Department of Defense. BORWICK, Board Judge. Mr. Charles Miller, a computer specialist with the Department of the Army, seeks reimbursement of expenses incurred when he moved his mobile home in connection with his permanent change of station (PCS) from West Virginia to Atlanta, Georgia. The claimed expenses are: Packing materials $113.20 Blocks, shims, stabilizers 362.00 Utility disconnect and connect 980.00 Ready mobile home for moving 625.00 Axle rental 250.00 Anchoring materials, utility connectors, skirting replacement 1,145.00 Household goods shipment 3,079.38 Repairs to damage caused by carrier 51.00 Mileage expense for two return trips to West Virginia Unquantified The agency recommends reimbursing claimant a total of $2,330.20 for expenses for packing materials; the blocks, shims, and stabilizers; the utility disconnect and connect; readying the mobile home for moving; and the axle rental. The agency maintains that claimant is not entitled to the remainder of the expenses. We conclude that claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of any of the expenses claimed. On September 6, 1994, the agency issued an authorization for claimant's permanent duty travel; the claimant was authorized to move his mobile home at Government expense "in lieu of shipment of [household] goods." The claimant was responsible for making the arrangements for the movement of his mobile home. About a month later, the agency amended the travel authorization to provide for shipment of the mobile home by Government bill of lading (GBL). When claimant was preparing to move his mobile home, the agency's transportation office advised him that it would be neces- sary to remove household goods from the mobile home to prevent the mobile home from being overweight. Accounts differ as to the precise advice claimant received regarding the household goods in his mobile home. The agency's transportation office states that its advice was for claimant to remove some household goods from the mobile home to prevent overweight condition during the move, while claimant maintains he was told to remove all household goods from the mobile home. The record also reveals that ten days before the planned move date, the carrier informed claimant that he could keep as much furniture in his mobile home as could be safely carried during the move. Claimant says that on the scheduled move day, the movers of the household goods removed the goods before the mobile home mover arrived. There is no explanation why claimant could not or did not coordinate the two moves. Regardless, claimant had all of his household goods removed from the mobile home and shipped by separate carrier at a cost of $3,079.38. Claimant incurred costs for packing materials ($113.20), the blocks, shims, and stabilizers ($362), the utility disconnect and connect ($980), readying the mobile home for moving ($625), and axle rental ($250). Claimant maintains that the utility disconnect and connect charges should have been included in the GBL, but were not. Claimant also incurred expenses of $1,145 for new parts-- skirting, anchors and utility connectors--allegedly necessary to receive the mobile home at the new destination. Claimant maintains that the agency refused to move the blocks, the anchor and the skirting materials necessary to connect the mobile home at the new site, and those parts were merely exact replacements for the parts the agency refused to ship. Claimant also seeks unquantified mileage expense for two trips to his old residence in West Virginia due to the Government's desire that he start quickly at his new duty station at Fort McPherson, Georgia. Statute provides that a federal employee who otherwise would be entitled to transportation of household goods and personal effects is entitled "instead of that transportation" to a reason- able allowance for transportation of a mobile dwelling (if the mobile dwelling is transported by the employee) or commercial transportation of the mobile dwelling at Government expense. 5 U.S.C.  5724(b) (1994). The Joint Travel Regulations for Department of Defense civilian personnel (JTR) implement the statute by providing that an employee who is entitled to transpor- tation of household goods may, "in lieu of such transportation," be authorized transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence. JTR C10000-A. Claimant maintains he is entitled to reimbursement for the costs of the movement of his household goods, because the agency's transportation office erroneously advised him that all of his goods had to be removed from the mobile home. The record conflicts on the circumstances that resulted in claimant's removing all of his household goods from his mobile home and transporting them by separate carrier. The circumstances are not relevant. Under statute and regulation, claimant is entitled to either (1) trans- portation of household goods and personal effects or (2) transpor- tation of a mobile home for use as a residence. He is not entitled to both. Through its GBL, the Government paid for the cost of moving claimant's mobile home; claimant is therefore not entitled to reimbursement for his cost of moving his household goods by separate carrier. Under the JTR, for a move inside the continental United States or Alaska, an employee is entitled to "costs generally associated with preparing a mobile home at a point of origin . . . and reset- tling the mobile home at the destination." JTR C10001-C.6. Prepa- ration costs include, but are not limited to: (1) rental, instal- lation, removal and transportation of axles, (2) labor costs for unblocking and unanchoring the mobile home at origin and blocking and anchoring the mobile home at destination, (3) costs for pur- chasing blocks in lieu of transporting blocks from the old duty station and cost of replacement blocks broken while the mobile home was being transported, (4) packing and unpacking of household goods associated with the mobile home, (5) disconnecting and connecting utilities, and (6) labor costs for removal and reassembling of skirting. Id. These items are allowable when an employee makes his or her own arrangements for transportation of the mobile home and seeks reimbursement from the agency. JTR C10000-E. The JTR provision applicable to shipment of mobile homes by GBL, however, provides that the Government will "pay all costs related to pickup, transportation, and delivery of the mobile home to destination ready for occupancy," but that "the employee will not receive any other allowances for the transportation involved." JTR C10001-D.1. As to the costs totalling $2,330.20, these might be reimbursable under the JTR if claimant had made his own arrange- ments for transportation of the mobile home. Since claimant transported his mobile home using a government GBL, he is not entitled to any further allowance. In seeking these additional costs, claimant does not maintain that the carrier violated the terms of its GBL when the carrier transported the mobile home. Rather, claimant poses a broader proposition. He argues that the phrase stating that the Government "will . . . pay all costs related to pickup, transportation, and delivery of the mobile home to destination ready for occupancy," in JTR C10001-D.1, means that the agency is required to reimburse claimant all of claimant's incidental costs necessary to ready the mobile home for occupancy, including his alleged costs incurred for the skirting, anchoring materials, and utility connectors. Claimant misinterprets the language. The heading of this paragraph of the JTR refers to "Government bill of lading." A bill of lading is both the receipt and the basic transportation contract between the shipper-consignor and the carrier. EF Operating Corp. v. American Buildings, 993 F.2d 1046, 1050 (3d Cir. 1993). Under a GBL, the agency pays transportation vouchers directly to carri- ers. 41 CFR  302-8.3(b)(1) (1994). The Government's commitment to pay in JTR C10001-D.1 refers, therefore, to the Government's commitment to the carrier to pay the specified costs of the Govern- ment related to the GBL, i.e. the Government's costs related to pickup, transportation, and delivery of the mobile home to a destination ready for occupancy. Those costs include the carri- er's charges for actual transportation, ferry fares, bridge, road and tunnel tolls, taxes and municipal and state permits. JTR C10001-D.1. The language as to payment in JTR C10001-D.1 does not create an open-ended promise by the Government to pay an employee's costs of making his mobile home ready for occupancy. Nor is claimant entitled to the remainder of the claimed expenses. The claimed costs for the unquantified claim for mileage, for extra trips to West Virginia made necessary by claimant's early start at his new job, are not reimbursable items under the JTR's transporta- tion allowance for mobile homes. We find no other regulatory basis for reimbursement of these expenses. Mr. Miller's claim for damage of $51 is not within our dele- gated authority, which is to settle claims by federal civilian employees for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station, formerly settled by the General Accounting Office (GAO) under the authority of 31 U.S.C.  3702(a). General Account- ing Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316,  202(n), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996). Section 3702(a) of Title 31 provides, as does its recent amendment in the General Accounting Office Act of 1996, the authority to settle claims "except as provided in . . . another law." 31 U.S.C.  3702(a) (1994); Pub. L. No. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996). Claims by employees for loss or damage incident to service are covered by another law--the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.  3721 (1994). That Act (1) vests claims settlement authority with agency heads, 31 U.S.C.  3721(b); (2) provides that the settlement is final and conclu- sive, 31 U.S.C.  3721(k); and (3) is considered to be the exclu- sive remedy for Federal employees, who may not file a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Talstrom v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 106, 107 (1983). Further, a claim for loss or damage is a claim for a tort, not a claim for an expense incident to a transfer of official duty station. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge