Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ December 10, 1998 ____________________ GSBCA 14264-RELO In the Matter of JERRY U. SHIMODA Jerry U. Shimoda, Volcano, HI, Claimant. C. Bruce Sheaffer, National Park Service, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, has requested our decision regarding what moving expenses are reimbursable to claimant, Mr. Jerry U. Shimoda, upon his retirement as the superintendent of a national historical park in Hawaii. Claimant seeks $5239.47, representing the alleged actual cost of moving his household goods (HHG) himself to his retirement location, including the costs of mileage, van and truck rental fees, gasoline, and airfare for relatives and friends who helped him move his HHG. These costs cover some 56.5 separate "moves" over the course of ten months. Although claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for the constructive cost of his return trip and of moving his HHG (limited to a maximum of costs of moving back to his last place of residence in the continental United States), this entitlement contemplates a single move and limits the categories of expenses claimant can recover. Although claimant's retirement move was not previously authorized by the agency, he may recover allowable actual costs for travel and transporting his HHG from his last duty station to his place of retirement, limited to the necessary trips to transport his HHG. Specifically, he may recover the cost of the rental van and truck, gasoline, and other actual expenses (not mileage) for transporting his HHG in a privately owned vehicle (POV) on eight and one half roundtrips and mileage for a single one-way trip in his POV from his last duty station to his place of retirement. He may not recover expenses for any additional trips, and he may not recover the airfare for his helpers. Background Mr. Shimoda, the superintendent of Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park (PUHO) in Honaunau, Kona, Hawaii, retired after thirty-nine years of Government service. Mr. Shimoda had been transferred by the National Park Service to PUHO from Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, in 1972. Claimant planned on retiring in early September 1996 and ultimately did so. He decided to reside, following his retirement, in Volcano, Hawaii, eighty miles away from PUHO. Before he moved, claimant was unaware that the Government would pay allowable expenses for the transportation of his HHG as a "return home" move upon his retirement. On January 13, 1996, claimant began moving his personal belongings from PUHO to Volcano. Mr. Shimoda, utilizing his personal vehicle and enlisting the support of three of his children and a friend, continued to make trips until October 22, 1996, when all of his personal belongings had been moved. Mr. Shimoda seeks the costs of 56.5 trips between PUHO and Volcano at 160 miles roundtrip, equaling 9040 miles. He also seeks reimbursement for the cost of flying his three children and a friend from Honolulu to PUHO to help with packing, loading, and unloading of the heavy items. Claimant paid for nineteen roundtrip airline tickets for his four helpers at a cost per ticket of $80 roundtrip between Honolulu and Kona. On November 13, 1996, claimant was advised by the agency that he was entitled to be reimbursed actual expenses related to the transportation of his HHG, including such things as truck rental, gas, oil, and tolls, not to exceed the amount which would have been payable at the applicable commuted rate to his place of residence at the time of his assignment to Hawaii. Claimant requested reimbursement for the following expenditures related to moving his personal belongings from his former residence to his retirement residence: 1. Mileage for 9040 miles at $0.31 per mile - $2802.40[foot #] 1 2. Rental of a cargo van for three days - $225 3. Rental of a truck for one day - $96 4. Gasoline expenses for two personal vehicles and a friend's truck - $596.07 ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 This represents 56.5 trips at 160 miles per roundtrip. The "half" trip represents claimant's final trip to his new home. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- 5. Nineteen roundtrip airfares between Honolulu and PUHO - $1520 In total claimant seeks $5239.47. Because claimant was not aware of his entitlement at the time of moving his personal belongings, he did not keep any receipts or obtain certificates to substantiate the weight of his HHG. However, in support of this claim, claimant submitted a list of all roundtrips he made, listing the dates on which these trips were made, and the vehicles used for each trip, beginning on January 13, 1996, and ending on October 22, 1996. On eight of those listings -- February 17, March 25, June 18, July 9, August 29, September 4, September 25, and October 2 -- claimant indicated that he utilized two vehicles for transporting his HHG. In addition, claimant's log indicates that October 22 was the date of his final one-way trip. Discussion Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5724(d) (1994), when an employee transfers to a post of duty outside the continental United States, his expenses of travel and transportation to and from the post are allowed to the same extent and with the same limitations as prescribed for a new appointee under 5 U.S.C. 5722. David K. Swanson, GSBCA 13661-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,794. For this purpose, Hawaii is considered to be outside the continental United States. 5 U.S.C. 5721(3). Section 5722, in effect at the time of claimant's retirement, provided: 5722. Travel and transportation expenses of new appointees; posts of duty outside the continental United States (a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe and subject to subsections (b) and (c) of this section[[foot #] 2], an agency may pay from its appropriations-- (1) travel expenses of a new appointee and transportation expenses of his immediate family and his household goods and personal effects from the place of actual residence at the time of appointment to the place of employment outside the continental United States; and (2) these expenses on the return of an employee from his post of duty outside the continental United States to the place of his ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 The limitations specified in these subsections are not at issue in this case. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- actual residence at the time of assignment to duty outside the United States. Thus, by statute, an agency may pay certain transportation expenses when an employee returns from his post of duty outside the continental United States to the place of his actual residence prior to his overseas assignment upon completion of an agreed upon period of service or retirement. The implementing regulations clarify that upon retirement claimant "may receive travel and transportation to an alternate location, provided the cost to the Government shall not exceed the cost of travel and transportation to his/her residence at the time he/she was assigned to an overseas station." 41CFR 302-1.12(d) (1996). In this case, the agency may pay claimant the reasonable cost of traveling to and moving his HHG to Volcano incident to his retirement, not to exceed the constructive cost of his allowable travel and transportation of his HHG from PUHO to Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. 41 CFR 302-1.2(a). According to the pertinent regulations and decisions of the Comptroller General, the allowable travel and transportation expenses would include the cost of travel for Mr. Shimoda and his immediate family, mileage to the extent travel is performed by privately owned vehicle, and the expense of transporting his HHG in conjunction with his retirement move. 41 CFR 302-1.12(a), (b)(2); Neil G. Pfaff, 68 Comp.Gen. 587 (1989); Dr. Arnold Krochmal, B-213730 (Apr. 17, 1984). As the Comptroller General consistently held, "It is the responsibility of the agency to determine whether the amount claimed for each of the expenses is reasonable regardless of whether the payment is within the maximum reimbursement available to the employee." Joan McGuire, B-235128 (Nov. 17, 1989) (citing Faustino W. Lopez, B-232600 (Aug. 3, 1989)). Claimant's claim for mileage for 9040 miles representing 56.5 trips at 31 cents per mile in the amount of $2802.40 may not be approved. We conclude that claimant has failed to establish that all of the claimed multiple trips were actually incident to his retirement move and had the primary purpose of moving his HHG. In the unfortunate circumstances present here, we recognize that claimant was forced to submit after-the-fact evidence supporting the dates on which he traveled to his retirement home and moved his HHG. However, the record is devoid of proof that all of these 56.5 trips were necessary to move his goods or undertaken primarily for the purpose of moving claimant's HHG incident to his retirement. In view of the proximity of the retirement home to claimant's duty station, we are concerned that allowing reimbursement for this many trips without the requisite degree of proof or any receipts whatsoever could be read to permit employees to move items piecemeal over extended periods of time at Government expense while traveling for the principal purpose of enjoying their weekend or vacation homes. Such was not the intent of the return home entitlement. In this case the record does contain evidence that on eight occasions in addition to the final trip, which is clearly incident to his retirement, claimant did in fact move household goods. On these eight dates he utilized two vehicles, and the record indicates that the primary purpose of such trips was to move claimant's HHG in conjunction with his retirement. There is insufficient proof in the record, however, that the other forty- eight trips were necessary for claimant to move his HHG or that the primary purpose of these additional trips over such an extended period was in fact to move his HHG. Consistent with the Comptroller General's ruling in William R. Tuttle, B-204285 (Dec. 15, 1981), another case involving movement of an employee's HHG by multiple trips in privately owned vehicles, we would not object to payment of actual expenses such as gasoline, oil, or toll expenses for one vehicle for the eight roundtrips between PUHO and Volcano, which we have concluded were necessary for claimant to transport his HHG. Accord Ray R. Shuler, B-255997 (June 3, 1994) (allowed reimbursement for moving expenses for three separate trips in slightly over one month). Claimant is also entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of the rental van and the rental truck, which were clearly used for the primary purpose of moving HHG, and expenses associated with the use of the van and truck. In addition, claimant may be paid the costs of his last trip from PUHO to Volcano as travel expenses for him and his wife. Neither statute nor regulation authorizes the cost of transporting "helpers" to assist with packing and loading numerous shipments of HHG.[foot #] 3 Transportation of HHG cannot reasonably be construed to include the cost of transporting four helpers on nineteen separate occasions to assist with packing and loading. While it is unfortunate that Mr. Shimoda was not properly advised of his entitlement to his "return home" expenses prior to his retirement, this Board cannot amplify the categories of entitlement for reimbursement of expenses beyond those allowed by statute and regulation. As such, the agency is not authorized to pay the airfare of the helpers. Decision The agency may reimburse claimant the actual costs associated with eight roundtrips, including expenses such as ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 3 Nor would claimant in this case be entitled to the cost of his children's and friend's labor. Claimant has not sought these expenses and such payment is not supported by the record. Expenses can only be reimbursed "when appropriate evidence is furnished to substantiate that payment was actually made pursuant to an arm's length contract." Ron C. Smith, ____________ B-255520 (Feb. 23, 1994); Michael L. Smiley, B-226189 (Dec. 9, __________________ 1988). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- gasoline, tolls, and oil for driving one vehicle between PUHO and Volcano. Further, we authorize reimbursement of the rental costs of the cargo van in the amount of $225 and of the truck in the amount of $96 and any gasoline and other expenses associated with actually transporting household goods utilizing those vehicles. Finally, claimant may be reimbursed mileage for eighty miles in one POV as the travel expenses for claimant and his wife traveling from PUHO to Volcano. Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed these expenses so long as the total reimbursement does not exceed the constructive cost of his allowable travel and transportation of his HHG to the place of his last residence within the continental United States. None of the other claimed costs associated with claimant's retirement move should be reimbursed. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge