Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________________ April 21, 1998 ______________________________ GSBCA 14547-RELO In the Matter of GRACE E. BERNASEK Grace E. Bernasek, Valley Center, KS, Claimant. Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Applicable regulations do not permit an agency to reimburse an employee for the cost of newly purchased mobile home skirting either as a miscellaneous expense or as a transportation cost. Background In 1997, the Department of Defense (DoD) transferred Grace E. Bernasek from one duty station to another within Kansas. DoD authorized Ms. Bernasek to transport her mobile home to her new duty station, which she did. Ms. Bernasek submitted a claim to DoD for the cost of transporting her mobile home and DoD agreed to pay that claim.[foot #] 1 Ms. Bernasek also claimed $1,279.86 for miscellaneous expenses that she incurred in connection with her move. DoD determined that $447.48 of Ms. Bernasek s claimed miscellaneous expenses should be reimbursed as part of her transportation costs, which reduced her request for miscellaneous expenses to $832.38 ($1,279.86 - $447.48). Ms. Bernasek s request for miscellaneous expenses included $389.88 to cover the cost of new skirting for her mobile home. Ms. Bernasek purchased the skirting because the skirting that she used at her old location could not be adjusted to fit at the new ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Ms. Bernasek says that DoD has not yet remitted to her $738.59 that it agrees it owes for transportation costs. Our file contains a handwritten note that suggests that DoD agrees it owes this amount. We trust that DoD will make this payment to Ms. Bernasek if it has not already done so. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- location. DoD decided that it could not reimburse Ms. Bernasek for the $389.88 skirting cost either as a miscellaneous expense or as a transportation cost. Ms. Bernasek asks us to review DoD s decision. Discussion An agency can reimburse an employee for the costs of relocating only if a statute or regulation authorizes the reimbursement. The regulation concerning miscellaneous expenses provides that an agency cannot reimburse an employee for a newly acquired item. 41 CFR 302-3.1(c)(5) (1997). The General Accounting Office (GAO), which considered relocation claims until July 1996, consistently decided that new skirting was a newly acquired item and so could not be reimbursed as a miscellaneous expense. Wanda J. Campbell, B-208991 (Feb. 8, 1983); Edelmiro Amaya, B-201645 (Dec. 4, 1981); Johnny J. Freeman, B-183809 (Oct. 3, 1975); Loyd C. Dille, B-182168 (Apr. 22, 1975); Roger W. Moore, B-181007 (Aug. 2, 1974); R.J. Schullery, B-176576 (Aug. 21, 1972). We agree with GAO s decisions. The regulation governing the reimbursement of miscellaneous expenses prohibits an agency from reimbursing an employee for a newly acquired item, and so DoD correctly decided that it could not reimburse Ms. Bernasek for the cost of the new skirting as a miscellaneous expense. Statute provides that DoD can reimburse Ms. Bernasek for the cost of transportation of her mobile home in lieu of reimbursing her for the cost of transportation of her household goods to her new location. 5 U.S.C. 5724(b) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation provides that DoD can reimburse Ms. Bernasek for the costs of the transportation of her mobile home, including costs generally associated with preparing her home for moving and with resettling the home at its new location. The regulation explains that reimbursable transportation costs include items such as the costs of blocking and unblocking, including anchoring and unanchoring; the labor costs of removing and installing skirting; the cost of separating, preparing, and sealing each section of the home for movement; and the cost of reassembling the two halves of a home. 41 CFR 302-7.3. The Joint Travel Regulations, which apply to civilian employees of DoD, contain these same provisions. JTR C10001. DoD correctly decided that it could not reimburse Ms. Bernasek for the cost of the new skirting as part of her transportation costs. Although the regulations recognize that an employee who transports a mobile home can incur expenses connected with skirting when the home is resettled in its new location, the regulations provide only that the labor costs of installing skirting are reimbursable transportation costs. 41 CFR 302-7.3(d)(2). The regulations do not provide that the cost of the skirting material is a reimbursable transportation cost, and Ms. Bernasek has not established that such a cost is generally associated with resettling a mobile home at its new location. DoD s decision not to reimburse Ms. Bernasek for the cost of skirting for her trailer is consistent with the provisions of the regulations. Decision We deny the claim. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge