________________________________________
                                    
                           September 18, 1997
                ________________________________________
                                    

GSBCA 14123-RELO


In the Matter of DONALD G. FULLMER


     Donald G. Fullmer, Price, UT, Claimant.

     James R. Turner, Director, Fiscal and Accounting Services,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 
appearing for Department of Agriculture.
     
BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Donald G. Fullmer, claimant, maintains that he should not have
to reimburse the Department of Agriculture (agency) for its cost of
moving more than 18,000 pounds of his household goods (HHG).  For
the reasons stated below, we deny his claim.  

     On or about August 14, 1995, the agency authorized claimant's
permanent change of station (PCS) transfer from Porterville,
California, to Price, Utah, with the agency shipping claimant's HHG
by the actual expense method (Government bill of lading, or GBL)
not to exceed 18,000 pounds.

     Claimant would not move until he found a house at the new duty
station.  The agency's relocation coordinator had made a tentative
arrangement with a mover, contingent upon the date of the move. 
Claimant found a house in which to live, and desired to move in
quickly.  The mover, however, could not move claimant's HHG on the
planned move date of September 25.  On September 21, 1995,
claimant's spouse called the agency's relocation coordinator and
advised her of the scheduling problem.  The relocation coordinator
contacted three movers, but found only one that would perform the
move as scheduled.  Since the reputation of that one mover was
good, the agency's relocation coordinator secured its services, but
time did not permit the mover to perform an on-site pre-move survey
of claimant's HHG and personal possessions.  Instead, the agency's
relocation coordinator authorized a telephone inventory of HHG. 
During the telephone survey, no one advised claimant that his HHG
might weigh more than 18,000 pounds.    

      Claimant moved between September 25-27 and shipped his HHG
and two other items: 18 boxes of professional books and papers and
130 "square feet" of firewood.  These items weighed (by claimant's
estimate), 800 pounds and 2,383 pounds, respectively.  Relying on
the erroneous advice of the mover that the weight limitation would
not be exceeded, claimant included the firewood in the shipment. 
The shipment, in fact, weighed 27,230 pounds.  The mover, there-
fore, charged the Government $10,304.79 and the agency billed
claimant for $3,503.83 for the cost of the excess weight shipped. 

     In an internal agency proceeding, claimant unsuccessfully
sought relief from the debt.  Claimant then filed a claim with this
Board seeking cancellation of the debt, charging that the agency
acted negligently in waiving the on-site pre-move survey and in not
advising claimant that his shipment would exceed the 18,000 pound
limit.  He argues that had he known the weight of his shipment
might exceed 18,000 pounds, he would have "taken necessary steps to
avoid any excess weight shipment even if it meant delaying my
planned move dates, occupying temporary quarters, etc."  

     Claimant has shown no basis for recovery here.  Statute
authorizes an agency to pay for transportation of HHG and personal
effects not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight.  5 U.S.C.
 5724(a)(2) (1994).  The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides
in relevant part: "The maximum weight of household goods that may
be transported . . . at Government expense is limited to 18,000
pounds for all employees."  41 CFR 302-8.2(a) (1994).  The FTR
further provides that: "If household goods in excess of the weight
allowable under this regulation are shipped on a Government bill of
lading . . . the employee shall promptly upon completion of the
shipment pay the proper agency official for the excess cost."  41
CFR 302-8.4(e)(2).  In establishing the debt, the agency acted in
accordance with statute and the FTR; claimant has not demonstrated
a basis for this Board to grant the claim.

     Claimant seeks a waiver of the debt from this Board, but as we
have noted previously, such a waiver rests with the head of the
agency alone.  Deland L. Broten, GSBCA 13730-RELO, 97-1 BCA
 28,961.  Claimant also seeks recovery under a theory of Federal
employee negligence, but a tort claim must be filed with the agency
under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employee's Claims Act, 31
U.S.C.  3721 (1994).  Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13679-RELO, 97-1
BCA  28,865.  Mr. Fullmer's claim is denied.
                              
                              __________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge