________________________________________

                               May 13, 1997
                 ________________________________________


                             GSBCA 14091-RELO


                     In the Matter of DR. PETER BIECK


     Dr. Peter Bieck, Nashville, TN, Claimant.

     Dan Sissom, Financial Manager, Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, Nashville, TN, appearing for the Department of
Veterans Affairs.

BORWICK, Board Judge.    

     Dr. Peter Bieck (claimant), an employee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), claims the cost of excess insurance for the
move of his household goods (HHG) from Germany to the United
States.  The agency denied reimbursement because the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) does not provide for reimbursement of excess
insurance for moving HHG.  Claimant argues that "these rules on
travel and relocation, however, did not apply to me at the time of
moving."  We conclude the agency acted correctly in disallowing the
claim.  

     In May 1993, while claimant was residing in Germany, the VA
offered him a position as Director of the Substance Abuse Treatment
Program, VA Medical Center, Nashville, TN.  He arranged for his own
move from Germany to the United States, and, on August 5, 1993,
purchased insurance for the move of his HHG.  He started work at
his federal job on October 3, 1993.  Two days before that date, the
VA issued an authorization entitled "travel authority for permanent
duty," which authorized reimbursement not to exceed $8500 for
claimant's "do-it-yourself" move.  He had his HHG moved on October
15, 1993.    

     On October 28, 1993, claimant submitted a voucher for
$8,247.35, which included $983.15 for the insurance.  The agency
"suspended" (disallowed) $945.65 of that amount, determining that
the employee was "responsible for excess valuation or insurance"
and citing 41 CFR 302-8.4(e)(3) (1993).  The agency concluded that
$37.50 "was allowed for depreciated value by the Government."  It
paid claimant $7301.70--the commuted rate allowance--for his
relocation.  Claimant appealed the agency's disallowance of the
excess insurance costs to this Board.  

     The FTR provides that commercial shipments from overseas shall
be made on Government bills of lading or purchase orders whenever
possible; otherwise, reimbursement shall be made to the employee
for transportation expenses actually and necessarily incurred
within the limitations prescribed by Section 302 of the FTR.  41
CFR 302-8.4(d)(2).  The valuation of property as declared for
shipping from overseas will not exceed that to which the lowest
freight rates will apply, except as provided in subsection (e)(3). 
41 CFR 302-8.4 (c)(4).  As for excess insurance, the FTR provides:

     Excess valuation or insurance.  An employee may declare
     a valuation above the minimum permitted if he/she assumes
     all additional expenses resulting therefrom, including
     the cost of insurance needed to protect the higher valu-
     ation.  

41 CFR 302-8.4(e)(3).  Employees are responsible for the cost of
excess insurance.  Howard L. Trickey, GSBCA 13645-RELO, 97-1 BCA
 28,781 (construing identical provision of Department of Trans-
portation supplemental travel regulation).  

     Claimant acknowledges the preclusive effect of the regulation
on entitlement to reimbursement for the cost of the excess insur-
ance, but argues that the regulation does not apply to him, pre-
sumably because (quoting his claim letter): "at the time I prepared
my move to the U.S. I was still employed by a private company in
Germany."  Claimant's argument is unpersuasive.  

     The relocation provisions of the FTR apply to "new appointees
for any position."  41 CFR 302-1.2(a)(4).  An agency may determine
whether or not new appointees are to receive relocation expenses. 
41 CFR 302-1.10(b).  Once the agency makes that determination, new
appointees are eligible to be reimbursed for six specified types of
allowable expenses, one of which is transportation and temporary
storage of HHG, as set forth in part 302-8 of the FTR.  41 CFR 302-
1.10(e), (e)(4).  Here, the agency made a determination that
claimant was entitled to relocation expenses.  However, as a new
appointee, he is entitled to only those expenses available to other
federal employees as set forth in part 302-8 of the FTR.  The fact
that claimant purchased the excess insurance when he was still in
private employment is irrelevant.  The VA correctly disallowed
claimant's request for reimbursement of excess insurance costs for
shipping claimant's HHG.  


                              _________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge