Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                 
 
                             July 23, 1998
                                                 
 
 
                            GSBCA 14308-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of JOHN F. STINSON
 
 
        John F. Stinson, Norfolk, VA, Claimant.
 
        Judy Hughes, Travel  Policy, Defense Finance and  Accounting
   Service, Columbus  Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department
   of Defense.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        The Department  of the Navy  transferred John F.  Stinson, a
   civilian   employee,  from   Waterboro,  Maine,   to  Portsmouth,
   Virginia, in 1995.   Mr. Stinson had difficulty  selling his home
   in Maine; he eventually sold it  at a loss through the Homeowners
   Assistance Program (HAP).  He was reimbursed, under this program,
   for some of  the mortgage interest, property taxes, and insurance
   he  paid  on  the  Maine   residence.    All  of  these  payments
   represented taxable income to Mr.  Stinson, and the employee  had
   to  pay  income taxes  on  them.   The  Navy refused  to  pay the
   employee a relocation income tax allowance on these benefits.
 
        Mr. Stinson  asks us  to review the  agency's decision.   He
   contends that  the Government  acts unfairly  toward an  employee
   when it forces  him to move, causes  his income taxes to  rise by
   reimbursing him for some of  the expenses incurred in moving, and
   then fails to compensate him for the increase in his taxes.
 
        Congress  anticipated the concerns  expressed by Mr. Stinson
   by  requiring that  agencies generally  cover  the higher  income
   taxes  employees  have to  pay  consequent  to their  receipt  of
   reimbursement for expenses associated  with relocations they make
   in the interest  of the Government.  5  U.S.C.   5724b(a) (1994).
   The coverage is accomplished through payment of relocation income
   tax allowances, as  mandated by the Federal Travel Regulation, 41
   CFR pt. 302-11, which implements the relocation statutes.
 
        In providing for additional payments to cover the tax impact
   of  reimbursements   of   relocation   expenses,   however,   the
   legislature limited the reimbursements on  the basis of which the
   payments  may be  calculated.    The  only  reimbursements  which
   qualify are those authorized under specific provisions of  law --
   sections 5724, 5724a, and 5724c  of title 5 of the United  States
   Code.  Id.    5724b(b).  The  HAP is a  program authorized  under
   other statutes  -- 10 U.S.C.    2832 and 42  U.S.C.   3374 --  to
   assist  civilian employees  of  the  Department  of  Defense  and
   members of the armed forces whose employment at various locations
   ceases (through transfer or termination) as a consequence of base
   closures.  Because HAP benefits are not provided under one of the
   specified provisions  of title 5,  they may not be  considered in
   the  computation of  relocation  income tax  allowances.   41 CFR
   302-11.4(g);   Lani  Gordon,  GSBCA  14429-RELO  (June  4,  1998)
   (adopting  rationale  of  Brian C.  McDaniel,  B-240762  (May 13,
   1991)).   We therefore  hold that the Navy  acted properly in not
   paying  Mr. Stinson  such an  allowance  on the  HAP benefits  he
   received.
 
 
        To return  to the  issue raised  by the  claimant:   Is this
   result fair?   That is a question   this Board may  not consider,
   since  the governing  law  has been  clearly  established by  the
   Congress.   In  settling claims  involving  expenses incurred  by
   federal   civilian    employees   for    official   travel    and
   transportation, and for relocation expenses incident to transfers
   of  official duty station,  31 U.S.C.A.   3702(a)(3)  (West Supp.
   1998),  we  may  consider  equity  only  within  the  confines of
   established  law, not  outside  them.   Whether  or not  Congress
   chooses to amend title 5 to further the purpose  of the HAP -- to
   "provid[e]  well-warranted  protection  to  servicemen and  other
   employees at closed  military bases who have suffered  a loss for
   reasons  beyond their  own control,"   H.R.  Rep. No.  1931, 89th
   Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3999, 4041
   -- any future  legislative amendment would not  affect the result
   we reach under existing statutes.
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge