_______________________

                                May 2, 1997
                         ________________________


                             GSBCA 13892-RELO


                   In the Matter of LAWRENCE M. RIBAKOFF


     Lawrence M. Ribakoff, Muskogee, OK, Claimant.

     Pamela P. Dix, Director, Program Management and Planning
Office, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, appearing
for Department of Veterans Affairs.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     In April 1996, Lawrence M. Ribakoff, an employee of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), was transferred from Detroit,
Michigan to Muskogee, Oklahoma.  Before he left Detroit, Mr.
Ribakoff was told by VA officials that reimbursement for moving his
household goods would be limited to "gas, the cost of the rental
truck and any tolls."  His travel authorization said in the
"Comments/Remarks" section:  "Employee authorized rental of U-HAUL
(Ryder) for shipment of household goods and will be reimbursed for
actual cost of rental and gas."

     Mr. Ribakoff believes that he is entitled by regulation to be
paid the "commuted rate" for hauling his household goods (which
weighed 4,080 pounds) to Muskogee.  As discussed below, we agree
with Mr. Ribakoff.

     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) contains the following
provision, entitled "Travel covered-(1) Mandatory coverage":

          When change of official station or other
          action described in this paragraph is
          authorized or approved . . . travel and
          transportation expenses and applicable
          allowances as provided in this chapter . . .
          shall be paid in the case of:

               (i) An employee transferring from one
          official duty station to another for permanent
          duty, provided the transfer is in the interest
          of the Government and is not primarily for the
          convenience or benefit of the employee . . . .

41 CFR 302-1.3(a) (1996) (emphasis added).

     The FTR authorizes agencies to use one of two methods for
transporting an employee's household goods.  Under the "commuted
rate system," the employee makes his own arrangements for
transporting the household goods and is reimbursed by the
Government in accordance with schedules of commuted rates set by
the General Services Administration.  The amount paid to the
employee is computed by multiplying the weight of the household
goods (up to a maximum) by the applicable rate.  41 CFR 302-8.3(a). 
Under the second method, the "actual expense method," the
Government normally assumes complete responsibility for shipping
the goods and does so under a Government bill of lading.  41 CFR
302-8.3(b).  The Government is to use the commuted rate system
unless a cost comparison shows that the actual expense method would
be cheaper.  41 CFR 302-8.3(c).

     There is no evidence that the VA authorized reimbursement
under the actual expense method on the basis of a cost comparison. 
The only other permissible alternative is reimbursement under the
commuted rate system.  Unfortunately for the VA, there simply is no
provision in the FTR for giving an employee the keys to a U-HAUL
and wishing him good luck in his next duty assignment.

                                 Decision

     The claim is granted.  The VA shall reimburse Mr. Ribakoff
under the commuted rate system for transportation of his household
goods.




                                   ____________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge