_________________________

                             December 6, 1996
                         _________________________


                             GSBCA 13865-RELO


                    In the Matter of GREGORY F. GABENT


     Gregory F. Gabent, New Bern, NC, Claimant.

     D. Lisenby, Director, Financial Policy and Systems
Directorate, Kansas City, MO, appearing for Defense Finance and
Accounting Service.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     This case concerns a claim by Gregory F. Gabent, a civilian
employee of the Department of Defense, for transportation of his
household goods.  In mid-September 1994, claimant was issued orders
transferring him from the Naval Aviation Depot in Alameda,
California to the Naval Aviation Depot in Cherry Point, North
Carolina.  He chose to undertake the cross-country move himself
with the understanding that he would be compensated for his efforts
in accordance with the Government s commuted rate schedule.  Upon
arrival at his new duty station, Mr. Gabent was advised that he is
entitled to only the incurred costs of his move.  Upon review of
the record and applicable regulations, we conclude that Mr. Gabent
is entitled to compensation at the commuted rate.  

     The facts regarding this claim are as follows.  On September
15, 1994, Mr. Gabent was issued travel orders transferring him to
his new duty station.  The orders read:  TRANSPORTATION OF
HOUSEHOLD GOODS BY SELF-MOVE.   At the time he received his orders,
Mr. Gabent also received printed instructions entitled:
 Information On Civilian PCS [permanent change of station] Travel.  
One section of these instructions has the following provision: 

     c. MOVEMENT BY U-HAUL DRIVE TRUCK OR TRAILER:  If HHG
     [household goods] and/or personal effects are transported
     by personally owned truck or trailer, rented U-Drive
     truck or trailer, or similar vehicle, the employee must
     retain and bring receipts for any rented vehicle and
     bring written verification of the net weight of the
     HHG/personal effects. . . . Reimbursement will be made on
     a commuted rate basis (weight times distance) unless the
     employee fails to furnish the actual or constructive
     weight of the shipment.  

     Mr. Gabent and his wife proceeded with the self-move.  With
the help of some local students, they packed and crated their
belongings.  They then rented and loaded two trucks and two vehicle
trailers and drove them from California to North Carolina.  After
arrival at Cherry Point Naval Aviation Depot, Mr. Gabent submitted
his travel voucher.  He was then told that he would be reimbursed
only for expenses incurred rather than at the commuted rate.  He
was advised that, in addition to vehicle rental receipts and weight
certificates, he should provide receipts for gasoline, packaging
material, any labor costs for packing, and any other miscellaneous
expenses incurred during the move.  

     On receiving this information, Mr. Gabent contacted officials
at the Naval Aviation Depot in Alameda to determine how he could be
reimbursed in accordance with instructions originally issued to
him.  This led to an exchange of correspondence in which the Human
Resources Director at the Alameda Depot, citing provisions of the
Department of Defense Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), explained to
Mr. Gabent that an employee would not be paid at the commuted rate
unless it could be demonstrated, through cost comparison, that use
of that rate is more economical than reimbursement of actual
expenses.  He further explained that employees are routinely
advised of this fact and that if, on comparison of costs, it is
found that commuted rates are not the more economical method, the
employee undertaking a self-move is limited to reimbursement of
incurred costs not to exceed what it would have cost to move the
goods on a Government bill of lading.  In an effort to be helpful,
the Human Resources Director at Alameda obtained a cost comparison
of the actual expense and commuted rate methods and sent it to Mr.
Gabent.  Mr. Gabent replied that he had already supplemented his
claim with a cost comparison several months earlier but that the
claim had still been denied.  

     Mr. Gabent's claim was eventually referred to the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS).  Because this claim is
similar to others already submitted to us by DFAS, no formal ruling
was issued to Mr. Gabent by DFAS.  Instead, the agency simply
forwarded the claim to us for consideration along with the others
already pending before us.  In forwarding the case, however, DFAS
notes that Mr. Gabent's travel orders did not authorize use of the
commuted rate schedule.  For that reason, DFAS supports the
decision of the Cherry Point finance office to reimburse Mr. Gabent
for incurred expenses only.     





                                Discussion

     In a separate decision issued on this same date, we have
discussed at length the basic issue raised in this case.  Jeffrey
P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO (Dec. 6, 1996).  In that decision, we
describe the two methods for transporting household goods, namely,
the actual expense method and the commuted rate method.  The Herman
decision also examines the central question of whether an agency
can reimburse an employee for the movement of household goods using
the commuted rate schedule, if it determines, only after the move,
that the commuted rate schedule was not more economical than the
actual expense method.  

     The agency in this case, being an organizational component of
the Department of Defense (DOD), relies on a provision contained in
the DOD travel regulations, the JTR, which apply to all DOD
civilian employees.  The provisions of the JTR, however, integrate
and supplement the Government's primary travel regulation, the
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).  The FTR, except for employees of
the judicial branch, applies to all civilian employees of
Government agencies, including civilian employees of the Department
of Defense.   41 CFR 301-1.2(a).  The provision of the JTR on which
the agency relies states: 

     A cost comparison will be made between the actual expense
     (GBL) and commuted rate methods of shipping HHG.  In the
     event the estimated cost under one method exceeds the
     estimated cost under the other method by more than $100,
     the more economical method will be used.  

JTR C8001-D3c.  It is the agency s position that this provision
applies equally whether the cost comparison is done before or after
the employee s move.    

     For reasons explained in detail in the Herman decision, we
have concluded that, under the FTR and the statute which it
implements, this cost comparison must be done before the method of
transporting the goods is selected.  This restriction likewise
applies to any agency supplement of the FTR, such as the JTR.  In
this case, as in the Herman case, we have determined that the
agency failed to perform a cost comparison before issuing orders to
Mr. Gabent to undertake a self-move.  This effectually renders the
JTR provision inoperative and compels the agency to look to the FTR 
for guidance on how to proceed.  Under the FTR, in the absence of
a cost comparison showing that the actual expense method is more
economical, employees are to be reimbursed for individual moves
according to the commuted rate schedule.  

     DFAS would deny Mr. Gabent's claim in this case on the ground
that his travel orders did not expressly authorize use of the
commuted rate schedule.  We consider it more significant that the
orders do not expressly prohibit use of the commuted rate schedule. 
Instead, they simply state  TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS BY
SELF-MOVE.   Instructions issued with the travel orders expressly
provide that for moves by U-Haul truck or trailer, "[r]eimbursement
will be made on a commuted rate basis."  Although the Director of
Human Resources at the Alameda Depot contends that transferred
employees are routinely advised on when the commuted rate schedule
can and cannot be used, we find nothing in the record for this case
which convinces us that Mr. Gabent was so advised.  On the
contrary, his orders, as written; the accompanying instructions;
and his understanding of both at the time of his move convince us
that the agency was prepared at that time to pay Mr. Gabent
according to the commuted rate schedule.  In view of this and the
applicable provisions in the FTR authorizing payment at the
commuted rate for individual moves, we conclude that Mr. Gabent is
entitled to payment at the commuted rate.  His claim, is,
therefore, granted.    



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge