June 5, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 13961-RELO


                  In the Matter of THOMAS J. PRENDERGAST


     Thomas J. Prendergast, Norwich, VT, Claimant.

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

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     In 1995, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hired Dr.
Thomas J. Prendergast to work as a staff physician at its medical
center in White River Junction, Vermont.  At the time, Dr.
Prendergast and his family were living in San Francisco,
California.  The agency authorized them reimbursement of various
travel and transportation expenses in connection with their move
to Vermont.  One of the authorizations was "to ship household
goods via commuted rate with reimbursement NTE [not to exceed]
$6000.00."

     Dr. Prendergast later sought reimbursement in the amount of
$6,000.  The VA first rejected his request in its entirety. 
Later, after he had filed a claim with this Board, the agency
maintained that he should receive only partial payment.  We hold
that he is entitled to receive the whole amount.

     Dr. Prendergast had his belongings transported in two
separate shipments.  Most of the goods went east with Allied Van
Lines.  Allied determined that these items took up 1,398 cubic
feet of properly loaded van space.  It estimated that this
shipment weighed 9,800 pounds and would cost $5,709.19 to
transport.  Dr. Prendergast was able to persuade Allied to carry
the entire load at a price of $5,300, including "extra care
protection plan" insurance.

     The remainder of Dr. Prendergast's goods consisted of
thirty-two cases of wine.  Dr. Prendergast states that he shipped
the wine separately because Allied did not have a license to
carry it.  Western Carriers, Inc. transported the wine at a cost
of $1,326.40 -- $1,040 for the shipment itself, plus $286.40 for
insurance.  Western used a refrigerated van for this shipment.

     In initially determining that Dr. Prendergast should not be
reimbursed for the cost of either of these shipments, the VA
maintained that as to the Allied shipment, the employee had not
satisfied the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) requirements for
proof of weight, and as to the Western shipment, the fact that
the articles required refrigeration precluded Government
liability.  On further reflection, the agency decided that it
should pay for the Allied shipment, less the portion of that cost
attributable to special insurance, but none of the Western
shipment since wine "appears to be a personal matter."

     To resolve this case, we need only go so far as the first
objection raised by the VA, proof of weight.  

     Under the commuted rate system, an employee makes his own
arrangements for transporting his household goods, and he is
reimbursed by the Government, taking into consideration the
weight of the goods and the distance shipped, in accordance with
prescribed schedules of rates.  41 CFR 101-40.203-3, 302-8.3(a)
(1995).  The Government is spared the administrative expense of
selecting carriers, arranging for carrier services and packing
and crating goods, preparing a bill of lading, paying charges
incurred, and processing any loss and damage claims.  Instead,
the employee bears these burdens and risks.  Jeffrey P. Herman,
GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,704, at 143,320-21 (1996); 5
U.S.C.  5724(c) (1994); 41 CFR 302-8.3(c) (1995).

     Under this system, a shipment's weight may be established
either by proper weight certificates or by multiplying seven
pounds by the number of cubic feet of properly loaded van space. 
41 CFR 302-8.2(c)(4), -8.3(a)(3).  Dr. Prendergast has followed
the second alternative, which, although not preferred, is
permissible.  See  Janice D. Warren, B-231691 (Feb. 17, 1989). 
Thus, he is eligible for reimbursement under the commuted rate
system.

     The VA has determined that under this system, the cost of
shipping Dr. Prendergast's household goods from San Francisco to
Norwich, Vermont, in 1995 was $15,194.  Dr. Prendergast seeks
only $6,000 as reimbursement for the cost of moving his household
goods.  Thus, he is entitled to all that he asks for.  Since an
employee who receives reimbursement under the commuted rate
system is responsible for all costs of shipment, the extent of
the claimant's payments for insurance, and whether wine qualifies
as a "household good" under the definition prescribed at FTR
302-1.4(j) (including subparagraph (v)(C) thereof), have no
bearing on the amount Dr. Prendergast should receive.





                              _________________________
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                              Board Judge