________________________________________ December 16, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14181-RELO In the Matter of PETER A. LEFEBVRE Peter A. Lefebvre, Browning, MT, Claimant. Henry Cooper, Travel Unit Manager, Division of Accounting Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Albuquerque, NM, appearing for Department of the Interior. BORWICK, Board Judge. Claimant, Peter A. Lefebvre, an employee of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, seeks reimbursement of expenses in connection with his permanent change of station (PCS) move from Gallup, New Mexico, to Browning, Montana. Claimant maintains he is entitled to payment of expenses for installation of a hitch on his pickup truck, the rental of a car hauler to transport a privately owned vehicle (POV), and the expenses of a U-Haul light hookup. The agency denied reimbursement because it considered the expenses unallowable under the then-existing Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). We agree with the agency and deny the claim. On February 13, 1997, the agency issued a PCS travel authori zation for claimant's relocation from Gallup, New Mexico, to Browning, Montana, between February 28 and March 6, 1997. The agency authorized reimbursement of temporary quarters subsistence expense, transportation by one car at $.15 per mile for 1137 miles, and miscellaneous expenses of $350. Shipment of household goods (HHG) was by Government bill of lading. During the move, claimant transported a second POV by a rental U-Haul car carrier, connected to his pickup truck. Later, claimant filed a voucher with the agency for reimbursement of $207.06 for the costs of a U-Haul hitch installed on his truck, $5 for a U-Haul light hook-up, and $228.29 for the car carrier. The agency denied reimbursement of those expenses. Claimant justifies reimbursement by stating that "Billings Area Personnel" approved his incurrence of those expenses tele- phonically and that "As it was, the weather was [too] dangerous, and I can't drive two vehicles at once and my wife had not the experience needed to drive in whiteout conditions let alone snow." Claimant seeks reimbursement for the cost of transporting a vehicle. Statute in effect at the time of claimant's move authorized Government reimbursement of the costs of transporting a POV in connection with transfers from the continental United States to a post of duty outside the continental United States. 5 U.S.C. 5727(b)(1994). Statute also provided that "except as specifically authorized by statute, an authorization in a statute or regulation to transport the effects of an employee or other individual at Government expense is not an authorization to transport an automobile." 5 U.S.C. 5727(a) (1994). The FTR in effect at the time of claimant's PCS travel authorized government reimbursement for transportation of a POV only in connection with a transfer or assignment to an official station outside the continental United States. 41 CFR 302-10.2(a) (1996).[foot #] 1 Consequently, we have held, consistent with decisions of the General Accounting Office, that an employee was not entitled to reimbursement of the cost of transporting a POV from one duty station to another within the continental United States. Jean M. Everest, GSBCA 13804-RELO (Oct. 21, 1997); Larry J. Burris, GSBCA 13676-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,923; cf. Shiela H. Gilette, B-241952 (Apr. 16, 1991). The costs here involved were incurred in transporting claimant's POV to a new duty station within the continental United States. The agency reimbursed claimant's mileage for one vehicle between duty stations as well as claimant's temporary quarters expenses, miscellaneous expenses, and expenses in moving his HHG. Claimant has obtained his ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 The statute was amended, effective 180 days after enactment of the act (March 23, 1997) to allow Government reimbursement of the costs of transporting a POV "to a new official station of the employee when the agency determines that such transport is advantageous and cost-effective to the Government." National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub. L. 104-201, 1715(a), 1725(a), 110 Stat. 2422, 2755, 2760 (1996) (to be codified at 5 U.S.C. 5727(c)). The FTR has been amended to reflect the statutory change. See generally 62 _____________ Fed. Reg. 13793, 13795 (Mar. 21, 1997) to be codified at 41 CFR 302-10.1). As claimant's PCS move occurred before the effective dates of the statutory and regulatory amendments, the claim is not governed by the amendments and we do not consider them. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- entitlement under then existing statute and regulation. The erroneous telephonic approval of the claimed expenses by Govern- ment officials does not bind the Government to spend money in violation of statute and regulation. Jean M. Everest. The claim is denied. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge