May 13, 1997 GSBCA 14130-RELO In the Matter of EDMUND J. WIATR, JR. Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., Utica, NY, Claimant. Sandra Grese, Director, Civilian Personnel Policy and Personnel Plans, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., was a supervisory operating accountant at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, during the mid-1980s. During and after his tour of duty at Ramstein, Mr. Wiatr alleged that his division's work was marred by a number of questionable financial practices. When his tour expired, he was returned to Griffis Air Force Base, New York, at a lower pay grade. A subsequent investigation by the Department of Defense's Office of Inspector General substantially supported Mr. Wiatr's allegations. To compensate him for the denial of the extension of his tour in Germany, the Defense Department paid him some of the back pay and allowances he sought. Mr. Wiatr was dissatisfied with the amounts he was paid and filed a claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO). GAO dismissed for various reasons, and did not consider on the merits, the portions of the claim which it addressed under the following headings: -- Post allowance and living quarters allowance -- Interest on back pay -- Legal expenses (1989 suspension) -- Legal expenses (return to continental United States) -- Reinstatement at Ramstein Air Base -- Cash award for suggestion -- Sustained superior performance award -- Promotion to GS-12 -- Additional GS-12 back pay and allowances -- Damaged household goods -- Miscellaneous allowances, differentials, and benefits GAO denied the portions of the claim dealing with other subjects: -- New York State income taxes -- Commissary and base exchange differentials -- Out-of-pocket medical expenses -- Home leave round-trip -- GM-13 pay and allowances (1987) -- GM-13 pay and allowances (1988) -- Quality step increase -- Overtime pay (1986-87) GAO allowed one portion of the claim, which it labeled "Overtime pay (1988-90)." Captain J. M. Fetter, USAF, Z-2867765 (Oct. 1, 1992). Mr. Wiatr asked GAO to review his claim further. GAO acknowledges that it did so and issued a settlement certificate on September 20, 1993. On November 24, 1993, Mr. Wiatr asked GAO to reconsider its decision on his claim. GAO received this request and agreed to address it. However, by July 1, 1996, when Congress removed GAO's jurisdiction to settle claims against the United States, Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-53,  211, 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995), GAO had still not resolved the request. The statute which removed the claims settlement function from GAO transferred that function to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB director delegated it to various executive branch agencies. Among them is the General Services Administration, which now has authority to settle claims involving travel and relocation expenses of federal civilian employees. Determination by Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget (June 28, 1996). The Acting Administrator of General Services redelegated this authority to this Board. Delegation of Authority from the Acting Administrator of General Services (July 17, 1996). On March 2, 1997, Mr. Wiatr asked us to resolve the motion for reconsideration he had filed with GAO in 1993. He asked that we reconsider the decision to the extent that it involves matters within our authority, and to forward the request to other agencies to the extent that it involves matters within their areas of expertise. We docketed this request as GSBCA 14130-RELO. In doing so, we asked Mr. Wiatr to specify which portions of the decision he wished to have reconsidered and, for each of them, why reconsideration is appropriate. We told the claimant that after receiving his response, we would address the matters which are within our authority and refer to appropriate agencies the matters which are within theirs. Mr. Wiatr made a response to our docketing notice on April 24, 1997. This response does not include the information we requested. Instead, it is called an "amended claim" and labels as "issues presented" the following questions: -- Is the claim subject to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 or in any other way premised on contract law? -- May the claimant receive transportation allowances he seeks as part of back pay? -- Does the Board have authority over the claim for reimbursement for damage to household goods which occurred during shipment from one of the claimant's duty stations to another of them? -- Is the claimant entitled to any interest on amounts found payable? The answers to these questions demonstrate that none of the matters raised by Mr. Wiatr are within our purview. Mr. Wiatr was not a contractor to the Government at any time relevant to his claim, so neither contract law nor the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C.  601-613, applies to the claim. To the extent that Mr. Wiatr is seeking additional pay or allowances, the claim is within the authority of the Office of Personnel Management. Donald E. Guenther, GSBCA 14023-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,795. To the extent that he is seeking reimbursement for damage resulting from the Government's shipment of his household goods, the claim is within the authority of the head of the agency in which he was employed at the time of the shipment, the Department of Defense. Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13679-RELO (Feb. 19, 1997). No purpose would be served by our considering whether any interest should be added to amounts payable on these portions of the claim, since we cannot establish any such amounts. We consequently dismiss this case from our docket and will send copies of the file to the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Defense. Each of these agencies is of course free to handle Mr. Wiatr's request in whatever ways it sees fit. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge