Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________________ October 21, 1999 ____________________________ GSBCA 14457-RELO In the Matter of JANICE M. GENTILE Janice M. Gentile, Lowell, MA, Claimant. Mazie T. Murphy, Chief, Branch of Financial Policy and Region 9 Finance, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Arlington, VA, appearing for the Department of the Interior. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Janice M. Gentile, a former employee of the Department of the Interior, has requested that the Board reconsider its decision denying her claim for amounts she says she expended in a house hunting trip. Ms. Gentile, as an employee of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in Newton Corner, Massachusetts, was scheduled to relocate with that office in December 1992. In August 1992, her travel orders, authorizing various expenses, including a house hunting trip to the new office location, were issued. At that time, claimant obtained an advance of $770. In November 1992, prior to the scheduled move, Ms. Gentile left the employ of FWS. FWS informed claimant that she was required to file a travel expense voucher to obtain reimbursement of her expenses and to account for the travel advance received in connection with the planned relocation. Claimant submitted an expense voucher dated October 30, 1992, for the period from October 13 through October 22, 1992. Under the schedule of expenses, claimant listed a miscellaneous expense of $20 for gas, $30 dollars for food, and the amount of $700 for "rent" incurred in connection with a house hunting trip. No further details, such as the nature of the rental or lodging expenses incurred, or the number of miles traveled, were provided with respect to any of these items. The agency deemed the expense report to be incomplete and pointed out that no receipts had been attached. In the absence either of receipts or further information necessary to verify the expenses claimed, the voucher was not processed for payment. In March 1993, a bill for collection of the travel advance was issued to claimant. Claimant did not return the advance or otherwise respond to this request for payment, nor did she proffer any requested documentation, apparently believing that the expense report as filed was adequate. The matter was eventually referred to a debt collection company and subsequently to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for processing under the refund offset program. After the IRS effected a partial collection of the travel advance by making an offset against one of claimant's refunds, Ms. Gentile requested the Board's review of her claim. The Board denied the claim, pointing out that Ms. Gentile had not provided enough information to enable the agency or the Board to determine that the trip was made, and that the expenses claimed were actually incurred, let alone the full extent of information required under applicable regulations. At a minimum, claimant must identify the name and address of the lodgings used, as well as the actual cost incurred for lodging. Since this information was lacking, the agency had properly denied the claim. Janice M. Gentile, GSBCA 14457-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,238. The Board noted in its decision that, after filing her claim, Ms. Gentile had apparently moved and changed jobs, but had not informed the Board or the agency of her new address or provided telephone numbers where she could be contacted. Before issuing its decision, on January 12, 1999, the Board made several unsuccessful attempts, by letter and telephone, to contact Ms. Gentile to request additional information needed to support the claim.[foot #] 1 The Board's decision was forwarded to claimant at her new address approximately one week after it was issued. She states that she called the Board on January 20, and asked for information on how to proceed, but did not receive a return telephone call with that information. Approximately six weeks later she called again and was referred to Board counsel, who called her on March 11 and explained the procedures for requesting reconsideration. That same day, Ms. Gentile filed her request for reconsideration and submitted additional copies of the documents she previously provided. In her request, she states that the lodging was in a private home and that at one time she had a handwritten receipt from the owner of the house. Claimant further asserts that she submitted receipts to her supervisor prior to leaving the agency and that she also faxed the receipts to him several months later. Once she had done that she did not ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 We note that the claim was docketed under claimant's name as of the time she was employed at FWS. Ms. Gentile has married since her employment with FWS, and she uses her married name (Cloherty). The Board's efforts to contact her were made under both names. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- expect that she would have to continue to retain receipts for this trip. She subsequently moved four times and no longer has any documentation other than what she has already provided. With respect to the Board's attempts to contact her, Ms. Gentile states that although she did not update this information for the Board, she did provide forwarding information to the Postal Service and her new number was listed with the telephone company. She does not understand why mail was not forwarded and updated telephone numbers were not provided by the telephone company in response to our requests. Discussion At the outset, we note that this decision would not have been necessary had Ms. Gentile fulfilled her responsibility, as a claimant seeking review of an agency action concerning her entitlement to relocation benefits, to ensure the Board had a current address and telephone number at which she could be contacted. It is not enough to assume that the Board will be able to track a claimant who has moved through the Postal Service and the telephone company's long distance operators. Had the Board been able to contact Ms. Gentile prior to the issuance of its decision, her additional statements could have been addressed therein. Additionally, claimants are routinely provided a copy of the Board's Rules of Procedure for Travel and Relocation Cases at the time a claim is docketed. Rule 407 clearly states that requests for reconsideration are to be made within thirty days of issuance of the Board's decision. 48 CFR 6104.7 (1998). Individuals who pursue a claim are expected to become reasonably familiar with the rules (which are fairly short) and to maintain a copy of them until their claim has been resolved. Moreover, although claimant says she called the Board on January 20 and did not receive a return call with the information she wanted, she does not explain why it took another five to six weeks to initiate a second call. Ordinarily, a request such as this would be summarily dismissed as untimely. Before dismissing this matter, however, we wish to make it clear that Ms. Gentile's vague explanation that she stayed in a private home and at one time had a handwritten receipt from the owner, even if timely filed, would not be sufficient to support her claim and does not address the Board's concerns. Nor may claimant shift the responsibility for her inability to provide this information to the agency. Although she asserts that she supplied the receipt to her supervisor on two occasions, the agency steadfastly maintains that it never received a receipt, although it requested receipts many times. We need not resolve this conflict, because it is claimant's burden to prove she is entitled to the amount claimed. As we explained in our earlier decision, under the applicable regulation, to demonstrate entitlement to reimbursement of expenses of this nature, claimant must provide sufficient information to show that the costs were actually incurred. Generally, employees are expected to retain receipts. If, for a good reason, a receipt is unavailable, to be paid the employee still must furnish the name and location of the lodging facility, as well as the dates of travel and the cost incurred. Here, at a minimum, claimant was required to produce the address of the private home where she claims to have stayed while house hunting, as well as the name of the homeowner. Although considerable time has elapsed since the expense report in question was initially filed, the matter was never resolved satisfactorily and the passage of time does not relieve claimant of the obligation to provide the information required by regulation. The agency has consistently maintained that this information was lacking. Without the information, the agency properly rejected Ms. Gentile's claim. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge