Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                        Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
            _______________________________________________
 
                             July 28, 1998
            _______________________________________________
 
 
                           GSBCA 14533-RELO
 
 
                   In the Matter of TAMARA STADNIKA
 
 
       Tamara Stadnika, Fenton, MI, Claimant.
 
       Ronald L. Page, Manager,  External Relations Branch,  Federal
  Aviation Administration,  Washington, DC, appearing for Department
  of Transportation.
 
  BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
       Tamara   Stadnika,  claimant,   seeks  reimbursement,   as  a
  miscellaneous expense  allowance,  of  the  cost  of  a  shed  and
  landscaping  services at  the modular  home at  her new  permanent
  duty  station.    The  Federal  Aviation  Administration  (FAA  or
  agency)   denied  reimbursement  because  the  expenses  were  not
  allowable  under  the  miscellaneous  expense  provision   of  the
  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).  We sustain the agency's denial.
 
       The agency authorized claimant  a permanent change of station
  (PCS)  move from Saginaw  to Flint,  Michigan, which was effective
  September  25, 1996.   Claimant's  reporting  date  was March  17,
  1997.   Claimant  says the  only housing  she could  afford was  a
  modular home, which she  located in Fenton, Michigan, on a  leased
  site  in the Homestead Community Park.  In April  and May of 1997,
  claimant incurred expenses for a  shed and landscaping.   Claimant
  maintains  she was required by Fenton and  the Homestead Community
  Park to provide a  shed on, and landscaping for,  the site of  her
  modular  home.   The agency  had paid  claimant her  limit of $700
  under the miscellaneous expense allowance of the FTR,  41 CFR 302-
  3.3(a)(2)(1996).    Nevertheless,  claimant  sought  an additional
  $200 for the shed and landscaping expenses, under  that  provision
  of the  FTR which  permits the  agency to  reimburse claimant  for
  miscellaneous expenses beyond claimant's $700  limit in an  amount
  capped by two weeks  of claimant's basic pay,  if the expenses are
  justified.  41 CFR 302-3.3(b) 
 
       The   agency  refused   to  reimburse   her  for   the  extra
  miscellaneous  expenses, maintaining  that  the expenses  were not
  allowable.  We agree.
 
                              Discussion
 
       The purpose  of the  miscellaneous  expense  provision is  to
  cover  expenses  for  various  contingent  costs  associated  with
  relocation and  establishing a residence  at a  new location.   41
  CFR 302-3.1(a).  The types of  costs covered include, but  are not
  limited to,  items such  as fees for connecting  and disconnecting
  utilities;  forfeiture losses  on medical,  dental or  food locker
  contracts that are not transferable;  fees for cutting and fitting
  rugs and  draperies that are moved  from one residence quarter  to
  another; and costs  of automobile registration,  driver's licenses
  and  use  taxes imposed  when  bringing  automobiles into  certain
  jurisdictions.  41 CFR 302-3.1(b).  
 
       The  FTR excludes  from the  miscellaneous  expense allowance
  costs  or  expenses  incurred for  reasons  of  personal taste  or
  preference or not  required because of the move, or circumstances,
  factors, or actions in which the move  to the new duty station was
  not the  proximate cause.   41 CFR 302-3.1(c).   Examples of  non-
  reimbursable costs include the cost of newly acquired items,  such
  as  the purchase or installation of new rugs or draperies or costs
  incurred  in  connection  with   remodeling  of  living  quarters,
  garages  or   other  buildings  to   accommodate  privately  owned
  automobiles, appliances  or equipment.      41 CFR  302-3.1(c)(5),
  (11).   Thus, after a  mobile home  was transported to  a new duty
  station,  an  employee's  cost  of  new  skirting  for the  home's
  reinstallation  was   non-reimbursable  under  the   miscellaneous
  expense allowance as a  new item.  Grace E. Bernasek, GSBCA 14547-
  RELO,  98-1 BCA    29,729.  The same  is true for claimant's costs
  for  the new  shed and  new landscaping.   These  costs also  fall
  within  the   category  of  remodeling   costs,  which   are  non-
  reimbursable.    That these  expenses may  have  been  required by
  local ordinance does not make them reimbursable under the FTR. 
 
                               Decision
 
       We deny the claim.  
 
                                 __________________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                 Board Judge