Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________________ May 11, 1998 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14311-RELO In the Matter of LEROY AARON LeRoy Aaron, Albany, GA, Claimant. D. Holloman, Supervisor, Personal Property Audit Division, Department of the Navy, Norfolk, VA, appearing for Department of the Navy. BORWICK, Board Judge. LeRoy Aaron, claimant, an employee of the Department of the Navy, moved from Livermore, California to Albany, Georgia, as a result of his permanent change of station. The agency authorized shipment of his household goods (HHG) by government bill of lading (GBL). Claimant seeks relief from all excess charges of $1,500.27 for shipping 21,980 pounds of HHG, 3,980 pounds over the 18,000 pound limit for Government reimbursement. Claimant is not entitled to recover as he is responsible for charges for the excess weight and for excess insurance. Claimant's move occurred on November 14, 1996. Two days before, the mover packed claimant's HHG. Claimant maintains that: 1. There were over 400 boxes used in this move that were packed with one or two items, then filled with twisted packing material and paper. 2. The majority of the aforementioned boxes contained only one small item that weighed less than the box and packing material. 3. The above-mentioned items were not items that re- quired individual packing attention, and could have easily been placed in a box with other items. 4. Vendor did not use new boxes to pack clothing, kitchen items, or linens which required a massive amount of washing, and has resulted in several boxes of clothing that still require dry cleaning before they can be used. After delivery of claimant's HHG, the agency's Traffic Management Officer sent an inspector to inspect the packing. The Traffic Management Officer advised the agency's Personal Property Department at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, California that: On the date of delivery, my inspector observed several crushed cartons due to the cartons being partially filled. Clothing and linens were packed in used car- tons. Many boxes contained only one or two items constituting balloon packing. The mover transported the HHG in two vans. The contents of one van weighed 1,660 pounds and the contents of the second weighed 20,320 pounds, for a total of 21,980 pounds. The total shipping charges stated on the GBL were $6,490.97. The agency calculated excess charges of $1,256.57, based upon the Government payment of $5,234.40 for shipping 18,000 pounds at the GBL rate of $29.08 per hundred weight. The excess insurance cost was $243.70, which resulted in a total excess cost due of $1,500.27. Claimant seeks relief from the $1,500.27 overweight and excess insurance charges he incurred because of the alleged balloon packing. Claimant also maintains that there was an unquantified higher storage cost incurred because of the deliber- ate over-packing procedures utilized by the mover, and that during the move, packers stole claimant's checks and forged his signature, withdrawing $1,000 from his account. First, we observe that the claim rests on an implausible factual premise, that the shipment's extra weight (3,980 pounds or almost two tons) was due to alleged excessive number of boxes and unnecessary packing material. Claimant has not shown what number and weight of boxes and packing material would be normal for his size shipment or how the supposed excess boxes and packing material could have weighed almost two tons. Second, claimant has not presented a legal basis for the claim. Statute authorizes an agency to pay for transporting, packing, crating, temporarily storing, draying and unpacking HHG and personal effects not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight when an employee is transferred in the interest of the Government from one duty station to another. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that "the maximum weight of household goods that may be transported or stored at Government expense is limited to 18,000 pounds net weight for all employees." 41 CFR 302-8.2(a) (1994). Net weight for uncrated shipments such as claimant's: "includes the weight of barrels, boxes, cartons and similar material used in packing, but does not include the pads, chains, dollies, and other equip- ment needed to load and secure the equipment." 41 CFR 302- 8.2(c)(1). The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) contain the same provisions. JTR C8000-A.,-B.1. The FTR also provides: If [HHG] in excess of the weight allowable under this regulation are shipped on a [GBL] . . . the employee shall promptly upon completion of the shipment pay the proper agency official for the excess cost. The excess cost shall be computed from the total charges according to the ratio of excess weight to the total weight of the shipment. 41 CFR 302-8.4(e)(2). The JTR provision is the same. JTR C4353. Since the limit of 18,000 pounds is based on statute and regulation, the agency has no authority to waive the weight limit for Government reimbursement of shipment of HHG, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Jack McGee, B-199303 (1980) (reject- ing claim for adjustment of weight limit for weight of interior packing materials used in shipment); cf. William J. Caspary, B- 223600 (no downward adjustment in employee's debt for excess weight charges to take into account value of packing service employee performed). By regulation, the weight of the boxes and interior packing is included in the weight of the shipment, and the agency is not authorized to relieve claimant of responsibili- ty for overweight allegedly arising from the weight of the boxes or packing. The excess insurance charge of $243.70 is claimant's respon- sibility as well. Under the FTR, for shipments within the continental United States by the actual expense method, the Government pays for the actual transportation costs of the HHG and the actual costs for packing, crating, unpacking, drayage incident to transportation, and necessary accessorial services. 41 CFR 802-8.3(b)(3). There is no authority for the Government to pay excess insurance. See 41 CFR 302-3.1(c)(3) (cost for additional insurance of HHG while in transit to new official station not reimbursable under miscellaneous expense allowance). In his claim, claimant briefly mentions excess storage charges, but does not explain why he is entitled under statute or regulation to a reduction in the storage charges nor does claim- ant attempt to quantify the amount allegedly due. The stolen checks matter as a claim against the Government is for consider- ation by the agency under a claim of loss filed pursuant to the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3721 (1994), and is not for consideration by this Board. Donald G. Fullmer, GSBCA 14123-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,291. Claimant is not entitled to relief. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge