Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                          ____________________
 
                              May 7, 1998
                          ____________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14520-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of CALVIN W. SCOTT
 
 
        Calvin W. Scott, Fortson, GA, Claimant.
 
         James  P.  Gerstenlauer,  Lieutenant  Colonel, Chief,  Tort
   Claims Division,  U.S. Army Claims  Service, Office of  the Judge
   Advocate  General,  Fort  George  G.  Meade,  MD,  appearing  for
   Department of Army.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        Mr.  Calvin W.  Scott has  asked that  we review  an alleged
   decision   by  the   Department   of  the   Army   to  deny   him
   reconsideration of a claim.  The  claim in question was filed  on
   April 3, 1996,  under the Federal Tort Claims Act,  28 U.S.C.A   
   2671-2680 (1996).     In  his claim,  Mr. Scott alleged  unlawful
   seizure of his household property by agents for Suddeth Van Lines
   on or about  October 11, 1995.  Mr. Scott further claimed that he
   had  suffered financial, psychological, and emotional injury as a
   result  of the seizure and also owing  to his inability to obtain
   information  regarding  the  matter  from  Government   employees
   located at  Fort Gillem and  Fort McPherson, Georgia.   By letter
   dated February 4,  1997, the  Eastern United  States Torts Branch
   of the United  States Army Claims Service advised  Mr. Scott that
   the claim, after  investigation, was denied.  This  notice, which
   constituted  final administrative action  on  Mr.  Scott's claim,
   also advised that  if he was dissatisfied with  the action taken,
   he could file suit in an appropriate United States District Court
   no later than six months from the  date of mailing of the letter.
 
 
        Upon receipt of the Army's notice of denial, Mr. Scott wrote
   to the President.   His letter was referred by the White House to
   the Army Claims Service for reply.  In replying to Mr. Scott, the
   Claims  Service again advised him  of his right  to file suit and
   reminded him that failure to do  within six months of the  notice
   of denial would result in his remedy being forever  barred.  
 
        By letter dated March 6, 1998, Mr. Scott asked this Board to
   review  an alleged  decision on  the  part of  the Army    not to
   reconsider his  original claim.   In addition,  he asked  that we
   review the  Army's alleged failure  to respond to a  request made
   under the Freedom of Information  Act for a complete copy of  the
   Claims Service's investigative file on his claim. 
 
 
         In  1995,  by   action  of  Congress,  the   administrative
   responsibility of the General Accounting Office for settlement of
   claims,  as  previously set  forth  in  31 U.S.C.     3702,   was
   transferred  to the  Director  of the  Office  of Management  and
   Budget (OMB).  Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No.
   104-53,   211(a), 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995).  The Director of OMB
   delegated  certain of these functions to the Administrator of the
   General Services Administration who, in turn, redelegated to this
   Board  the   settlement  functions   pertaining  to  travel   and
   relocation expense  claims by  federal civilian  employees.   The
   authority to settle these claims has more recently been vested by
   statute in the Administrator.   General Accounting Office Act  of
   1996, Pub. L. No. 104-316,   202(n), 110 Stat. 3826, 3843 (1996).
 
        Mr.  Scott, although married to a federal civilian employee,
   is   not  himself  currently   employed  by  the   United  States
   Government.    The transfer  of the household goods  belonging to
   him  and his wife which prompted his  claim was undertaken on the
   occasion of his  wife's permanent change of station in   the fall
   of 1995.   Apart from Mr. Scott  being designated by his  wife as
   release agent  for the pick-up  of the family's  household goods,
   there is no  indication in the record  for this case that  he has
   been authorized to serve as her agent in any other respect.
 
        The  processing of Mr. Scott's tort claim and the processing
   of his request under the Freedom Of Information Act for access to
   the  Army's investigative  file  are  both  matters  governed  by
   statutory and regulatory schemes having  nothing to do with  this
   Board's  authority to settle travel and relocation expense claims
   of  federal employees.   Furthermore, although Mr.  Scott's claim
   may  touch  on  relocation benefits  associated  with  his wife's
   transfer, we find  no indication that a claim  for these benefits
   has actually been brought or 
   authorized by his wife.  In short, we dismiss this case  as being
   plainly beyond our authority to resolve.  
 
      
 
 
                                      _____________________
                                      EDWIN B. NEILL
                                      Board Judge