____________________________ July 25, 1997 ____________________________ GSBCA 14141-RELO In the Matter of GEORGE J. KRAKIE George J. Krakie, Bremerton, WA, Claimant. G. A. Terrill and Judy Hughes, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. At issue in this case is claimant's request for reimbursement of $11,827.92 in costs incurred for the shipment of household goods due to a change of permanent duty station. The Disbursing Officer, Personnel Support Activity, Department of the Navy, Puget Sound, and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, Ohio, denied reimbursement. On March 27, 1997, claimant filed his claim with this Board. By letter dated July 17, 1997, claimant also seeks $12,500 for damages to his boat sustained during the move. Background Claimant, George J. Krakie, a crane operator employed by the Navy, volunteered to be transferred in April 1996 from the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long Beach, California, due to a pending closure at the facility. He was offered a permanent position at the Trident Refit Facility in Bangor, Washington. On June 18, 1996, claimant was issued an authorization for civilian permanent duty travel, Department of Defense Form DD 1614. Claimant was authorized temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for fifty-two days, miscellaneous expenses, real estate expenses, travel, shipment of household goods by government bill of lading, temporary storage of household goods for ninety days, and a house hunting trip, for a total estimated cost of $55,225. Claimant's reporting date at the new station was August 4, 1996. On July 9, 1996, claimant's travel authorization was amended, delaying his reporting date until September 1, 1996, and increasing the estimated cost of his reimbursement to $55,394. On July 18, 1996, claimant's travel orders were amended a second time because claimant elected to transport his boat and reside in the boat as his permanent residence. Claimant had maintained two residences--his boat and a home in Palm Springs. Based upon his travel authorization, it was claimant's understanding that the Government would pay for both the costs of transporting the boat, as a mobile home, and the contents of his Palm Springs home as household goods. In this amendment, the agency authorized reimbursement for both the cost of the shipment of household goods and the movement of claimant's boat as his permanent residence. Claimant reported to the Bangor, Washington, submarine base on September 3, 1996, and submitted his receipts documenting the costs of the move. At that time, claimant was informed that due to his decision to transport his boat as a permanent residence, he would not be reimbursed for the shipment of household goods. Claimant was reimbursed for the movement of his boat in the amount of $4,622.46. He was also reimbursed for the closing costs associated with his purchase of a new residence because his boat was rendered uninhabitable due to damage during transit. Claimant requests that he be reimbursed for moving his household goods in the amount of $11,827.92. In addition, claimant seeks $12,500 for damages to the boat. Discussion Statute provides that a federal employee who otherwise would be entitled to transportation of household goods and personal effects is entitled "instead of that transportation" to a reasonable allowance for transportation of a mobile dwelling (if the mobile dwelling is transported by the employee) or commercial transportation of the mobile dwelling at Government expense. 5 U.S.C.  5724(b) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), paragraph 302-7.1(a), which implements this statute, provides: An employee who is entitled to transportation of his/her household goods under part 302-8 shall, instead of such transportation, be entitled to an allowance, as provided in this part, for the transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence. . . . If an employee is not eligible to receive an allowance for movement of his/her mobile home, he/she may be eligible to receive an allowance based on the transportation of his/her household goods under part 302-8. 41 CFR 302-7.1(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, the Department of Defense's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) for that agency's civilian personnel states in relevant part: "an employee who is entitled to movement of household goods (HHG) may, in lieu of such transportation, be authorized transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence." JTR C10000. Claimant was authorized in travel orders to ship his household goods. However, consistent with 41 CFR 302-7.1 and JTR C10000, when claimant was authorized to ship his boat in his amended orders, his authorization to ship his household goods should have been rescinded, and the agency erroneously neglected to do this. As this Board succinctly stated in Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13679-RELO, et al., 97-1 BCA  28,865, "[u]nder statute and regulation, claimant is entitled to either (1) transportation of household goods and personal effects or (2) transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence. He is not entitled to both." Claimant contends he is entitled to reimbursement because the agency erred in originally authorizing reimbursement for both the shipment of household goods and the shipment of his boat. While it is unfortunate that claimant relied on the agency error which authorized reimbursement for both the shipment of his household goods and the shipment of his boat, it is well established that agency error does not provide a basis for reimbursement. Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947) ("[W]hatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority."). Claimant's claim for damages to his boat is not within this Board's delegation of authority, which is to settle claims by federal civilian employees for relocation expenses incident to the transfer of duty station, formerly settled by the General Accounting Office (GAO) under 31 U.S.C.  3702(a). General Accounting Office Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316,  202(n), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996). This Board lacks the authority to consider claimant's claim for the damages to his boat. Section 3702(a) of Title 31 provides, as does its recent amendment in the General Accounting Office Act of 1996, the authority to settle claims "except as provided in . . . another law." 31 U.S.C.  3702(a) (1994); Pub. L. No. 104-316, 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996). Claims by employees for loss or damage incident to service are covered by another law--the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.  3721 (1994). Miller, 97-1 BCA  28,865. Decision The claim is denied. __________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge