July 15, 1997
                                                 


                             GSBCA 14133-RELO


                      In the Matter of ROY D. HIRCHAK


     Roy D. Hirchak, Converse, TX, Claimant.

     Bobby A. Derrick, Director, Accounting Support, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for
Department of Defense.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Mr. Roy D. Hirchak, a civilian employee of the
Department of the Army, made a permanent change of station move
from Fort Polk, Louisiana, to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, during
August 1996.  He disagrees with the amount he received from the
agency as reimbursement for shipment of his household goods (HHG),
and the agency has denied his claim for further reimbursement.  Mr.
Hirchak requested review by the General Accounting Office of the
denial of his claim.  

     Mr. Hirchak's travel authorization number 06-03, dated June
26, 1996, states:

     MOVEMENT OF HHG BY GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING [GBL] IS
     AUTHORIZED IF COMPARATIVE ESTIMATE OF TRANSPORTATION
     OFFICE INDICATES A SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF AT LEAST
     $100, IAW JTR VOL 2, C8001.  NINETY DAYS TEMPORARY
     STORAGE OF HHG IS AUTHORIZED.  RENTAL CAR AUTHORIZED.

     By amendment dated July 19, 1996, the travel authorization was
amended as follows:

     TO #06-03 DATED 06-26-96 ITEM #17 IS AMENDED TO ADD
     "SHIPMENT OF HHG UNDER COMMUTED RATE SYSTEM IS
     AUTHORIZED."  REMAINDER OF ORDER IS UNCHANGED.

     On August 2, 1996, Mr. Hirchak accomplished his move by moving
his HHG himself with the aid of his brother, by driving a rental
truck and his own pickup truck, towing his vehicle in an attached
car carrier.  He submitted a claim in the amount of $2,884.49,
based upon the commuted rate he believed had been authorized.  The
agency paid him $622.28, which was based upon claimant's actual
expenses and designated by the agency's finance office as payment
by the GBL method.  Mr. Hirchak requested additional reimbursement
of the difference between the commuted rate and the amount he
actually received--$2,262.21.

     By memorandum issued by Elmer F. Williams, Director of
Civilian Personnel, Fort Sam Houston, the agency official states
the agency's basis for denying the claim:

          Based on a reconstruction of the interaction between
     members of the two Transportation Offices (Fort Polk and
     Fort Sam Houston) and the Benefits Counselor . . . of my
     office, it has become apparent that all steps and
     procedures requiring a cost comparison on one method of
     shipment of your household goods (CRS)[Commuted Rate
     Schedule] versus another (GBL) were not followed. 
     Erroneous assumptions were made that a favorable
     comparison had been completed by either [Transportation
     Office], which cleared the way for your amendment to be
     inappropriately authorized by my office.

          Unfortunately, this was not done, and you acted in
     good faith under the assumption that you would be
     eligible under CRS.  However, entitlements for shipment
     of your household goods were paid correctly by the local
     DAO travel office . . . .

     The agency also submitted a memorandum to this Board dated
April 3, 1997, which reads, in relevant part:

          Although his orders and related amendment
     "authorized" movement of HHG at a comparative (GBL or
     commuted) rate, he chose to make his own arrangements for
     HHG by renting a truck and moving himself.  Subparagraph
     C8001-4(c)(3), the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR), in
     effect at the time (and currently in effect) . . . allows
     reimbursement for actual expenses incurred not to exceed
     what it would have cost the Government had the shipment
     been made by GBL.

     The agency has misinterpreted the applicable regulations.  The
fact that an employee chooses to make his own arrangements and
perform a self-move of HHG does not limit the employee to
reimbursement solely of actual expenses. The Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) and Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which
supplement the FTR provisions with respect to civilian employees of
the Department of Defense, provide that the cost of shipping HHG
may be reimbursed from any origin to any destination so long as the
amount paid by the Government does not exceed the cost of
transporting the property in one lot by the most economical route
from the last official duty station of the transferring employee to
the new official duty station.  41 CFR 302-8.2(e) (1996); JTR
C8001-C.  The FTR further provides for two alternative methods of
reimbursement:  the commuted rate method and the actual expense
method.  41 CFR 302-8.3.  Under the commuted rate method, the
employee makes the arrangements for transporting HHG, selecting the
carrier, and receiving reimbursement from the Government in
accordance with published rate schedules which may exceed actual
costs.  This is so because the reimbursement in excess of actual
costs is meant to reimburse the employee for assuming the
administrative responsibility of moving HHG.  Under the actual
expense method, the Government assumes responsibility for making
shipment arrangements, ships the goods under a GBL, and pays the
carrier directly.   

     The FTR provides that for individual moves, the commuted rate
method is preferred, principally because the Government is spared
the administrative expenses associated with selecting a carrier,
arranging for the carrier services and for packing and crating,
preparing the GBL, paying charges incurred, and processing loss and
damage claims.  See Jeffrey P. Herman, GSBCA 13832-RELO, 97-1 BCA
 28,704 (1996).  The FTR permits an agency to use the GBL method
for an individual move, however, if it determines, under an
appropriate cost comparison, that such a move would be more
economical.  Id.  As the Board noted in Herman, the JTR makes the
discretionary use of the actual expense method mandatory for
individual moves when this method is determined, upon completion of
a cost comparison, to be more economical.  JTR C8001-D.3.   To the
extent that the cost comparison required under the JTR has not been
properly performed prior to the move, that provision becomes
inapplicable, and entitlement to payment is governed by the FTR. 
Herman; see also Samuel L. Marr, GSBCA 14039-RELO, 97-1 BCA
 28,788.  

     In the record before us, it is clear that the agency did not
perform a cost comparison prior to the selection of the method for
transporting HHG.  No GBL amount was ever stated in either the
original or amended travel orders which would serve to limit
reimbursement of expenses.  The agency admits in its original
denial of the claim that the cost comparison had not been
performed, either before or after the travel orders were issued. 
In fact, the cost calculation by which Mr. Hirchak received his
reimbursement, while designated as the GBL method, is nothing more
than a calculation based on Mr. Hirchak's incurred actual cost, and
is not based on any cost comparison performed by the agency. 

     As Mr. Hirchak's travel orders authorized payment by the
commuted rate method, and no cost comparison to the actual expense
method (GBL) was performed, he is entitled to be compensated
pursuant to the commuted rate method.





                                   _______________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge