Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ December 9 , 1998 ________________________________ GSBCA 14338-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES S. WAYMAN Charles S. Wayman, Newport, NC, Claimant. D. Holloman, Supervisor, PPTY Audit Division, Naval Transportation Support Center, Norfolk, VA, appearing for Department of the Navy. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. In this case claimant requests that the Board waive or reduce a debt of $2478.98 he incurred due to the cost for shipment of household goods which weighed over 18,000 pounds. The maximum weight limitation for which claimant may be reimbursed is established by statute and regulation, and may not be altered by this Board. Thus, claimant is liable for the cost of shipping goods weighing in excess of 18,000 pounds. The agency may not reduce the weight of a shipment based upon a 10% packing allowance. Although the agency erroneously advised claimant regarding such an allowance, there is no legal basis for this Board to waive claimant's debt. Finally, because claimant has not established that the charges assessed by the agency for the excess weight were erroneous, we do not reduce claimant's debt. We, thus, deny the claim. Background Claimant, Charles S. Wayman, was transferred from the Naval Aviation Depot in Norfolk, Virginia, to the Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, North Carolina, effective March 4, 1996. In connection with his transfer claimant was authorized to ship 18,000 pounds of household goods. Claimant's household goods were picked up on January 20, 1996, and he was advised that the shipment weighed 20,490 pounds. Claimant estimated that he had an additional 5000 to 6000 pounds of household goods to ship. He contacted the Naval Transportation Support Center (NTSC) in Norfolk, Virginia, to obtain an estimate of the cost to move the excess household goods. At that time, claimant was informed by an agent at NTSC that he was entitled to a 10% packing allowance that reduced the 20,490 pounds to 18,441 pounds, which together with the additional 5000 to 6000 pounds would result in the total excess weight being no more than 6441 pounds. The representative of NTSC advised claimant that the rate to transport the excess would be $10.10 per 100 pounds, or $650.54 for an excess of 6441 pounds. Based upon this estimate, claimant allowed the carrier, Cooks Moving Service, Inc., to transport his household goods. He took delivery of the goods on July 10, 1997. The actual weight of the household goods transported for claimant was 25,430 pounds. The agency did not accord him a 10% packing allowance. It consequently computed his liability for shipment of weight in excess of 18,000 pounds on the basis of 7430 pounds of excess weight. The charge assessed was $2478.98. The agency computed the charges for the excess weight using the formula set out in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-8.3(b)(5) (1996) (FTR 302-8.3(b)(5)): Step 1: Excess Weight 7430 Total Weight = Ratio to be applied 25,430 = .2922 Step 2: Ratio x Total Charges = Employee's .2922 x $8484.59 = $2478.98 liability for the movement of the household goods Claimant says that his decision to have all his household goods shipped was premised on the information supplied by the agency -- that shipment would cost no more than $650.54. He requests that, because of the financial hardship payment of the entire $2478.98 would impose on him, we waive this debt. Alternatively, if waiver of the debt is not possible, he asks that we limit the amount he owes by applying the $10.10 per 100 pounds rate to the actual amount of excess weight, 7430 pounds, thus making his debt $750.43. Discussion This Board decided a similar case in Deland L. Broten, GSBCA 13730-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,961. As we recognized in Broten, statute and regulation authorize an agency to pay for transportation of household goods and personal effects not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994); Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) 8000-A. Further, the Board noted that the JTR contain specific guidance for determining the net weight of shipments: "[T]he net weight shall be that shown on the bill of lading or on the weight certificate attached thereto, which under Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) regulations, includes the weights of barrels, boxes, cartons, and similar material used in packing . . . ." Broten, 97-1 BCA at 144,244. Thus, the packing materials were properly included in the weight of the shipment and claimant was responsible for paying the cost of transporting household goods which weighed over 18,000 pounds. As in the instant case, the claimant in Broten received erroneous advice that the allowed weight was 18,000 pounds minus 10% for shipping boxes, packing materials, etc. Despite this erroneous advice, the Board in Broten ruled that under applicable law this Board could not relieve the claimant from his debt. Broten, 97-1 BCA at 144,244; 5 U.S.C. 5584(a)(2)(A) (Supp. II 1996). More recently, in Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO (Dec. 4, 1998), this Board carefully analyzed its waiver authority and reiterated that it lacked the authority to waive the requirement that the claimant pay the cost of shipping household goods in excess of 18,000 pounds. Therefore, we similarly conclude that the Board cannot waive Mr. Wayman's debt. However, this does not end the matter since claimant further requests that this Board reduce his debt to $750.43, based upon a rate of $10.10 per hundred pounds for the excess weight, the rate he was erroneously quoted by the NTSC agent. In so arguing, claimant erroneously contends that the charge for shipping the excess weight was calculated based upon a rate of $33.36 per hundred pounds. However, the charges for the excess weight were properly determined by applying the formula set forth in FTR 302-8(b)(5), based upon a percentage of the total charges of $8484.59 on the Government bill of lading (GBL). The GBL charges are not based upon a dollar rate per hundred pounds, but rather are based upon tariff rates for hauling charges, packing charges, and accessorial charges. Claimant has suggested no basis for questioning the total charges which appeared on the GBL, $8484.59. Because claimant has not demonstrated that the total charges on the GBL were erroneous, or that the agency's calculation of claimant's liability for the excess weight was faulty, there is no legal basis for this Board to suggest that the agency reduce the amount owed by claimant. In contrast, the agency properly applied the calculation set forth in FTR 302-8.3(b)(5). Under that regulation, the excess weight charge computation is predicated on the actual net excess weight as a percentage of the total charges of shipment. Mark E. Schneider, GSBCA 14478-RELO (Dec. 4, 1998). As the Comptroller General has recognized, "The method of determining the amount of the charges applicable to the excess weight is prescribed in the regulations which have the force and effect of law and may not be waived by the employing agency or our Office . . . . Clearly, the law and regulations prescribed the government's maximum liability for transportation and related expenses and the employee's liability for any excess charges in terms of actual net weight--not household goods carriers' methods of assessing transportation charges." Gustavo R. Martinez, B-227581 (Feb. 16, 1988) (citations omitted). Finally, it has long been established that inadequate counseling or erroneous advice by the agency does not provide a basis for relieving an employee from liability for exceeding the statutory weight limit. E.g., Gustavo R. Martinez, B-227581 (Feb. 16, 1988); see generally Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO (Dec. 4, 1998). Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge