Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                         _____________________
 
                            October 19, 1998
                         _____________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14575-RELO
 
 
                   In the Matter of RICHARD P. HEBERT
 
 
        Richard P. Hebert, Caribou, ME, Claimant.
 
        Mark  Slowiaczek, Office of General Counsel, Defense Finance
   and Accounting Service,  Denver, CO, appearing for  Department of
   Defense.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge.
 
        Mr. Richard  P. Hebert asks that we  reconsider our decision
   of September 24,  1998, in which we affirmed  his agency's denial
   of a claim  for $1250 allegedly incurred in  conjunction with the
   purchase of a home at his new  permanent duty station (PDS).  Mr.
   Hebert  paid the  amount in  question to  the State  of Maine  in
   satisfaction of a  lien previously imposed on the  property prior
   to its sale for failure of the seller to pay child support. 
 
        Because  payment of this  claim together with reimbursements
   already received by  Mr. Hebert would  have exceeded the  maximum
   limit  for  reimbursement  under  the  Joint  Travel  Regulations
   (namely five percent of the purchase price of  a residence at the
   new PDS (JTR C14002-B.2)), Mr. Hebert also asked us to review the
   agency's determination  that the purchase  price of his  new home
   was $31,000.  
 
        Upon concluding  that the  agency's denial  of Mr.  Hebert's
   claim was in accordance with regulation, we saw no  need to reach
   this second issue concerning the purchase price of the home.   It
   is this decision regarding the  second issue which Mr. Hebert now
   asks us to reconsider.  For the first  time, he claims that he is
   also entitled to $800 for a survey  of the property.  He explains
   that if the  agency determination that the purchase  price of his
   home was only  $31,000, he will not be  entitled to reimbursement
   of this entire  amount since,  as in  the case of  his claim  for
   reimbursement of the cost of  removing the lien, reimbursement of
   this amount  together with other reimbursements  already received
   will be in  excess of the maximum  allowable based on a  purchase
   price of $31,000.
 
        In this case, the only possible reason for our examining the
   issue  of the purchase price of Mr.  Hebert's new home would have
   been to calculate the extent to  which he could be reimbursed for
   the  cost  of  removing  the lien  on  the  property.    Once the
   determination was  made that he was not  entitled to any money at
   all for  that claim, the  issue concerning the purchase  price of
   his home  no longer  had any  importance for  the case.   We  can
   hardly be  expected to reopen  the case  in order to  address the
   issue in the context of an entirely  different claim which is not
   even before  us at this  time and must initially  be submitted to
   the  agency  for  review.    For  this  reason  the  request  for
   reconsideration is denied.  
 
 
                                      _____________________
                                      EDWIN B. NEILL
                                      Board Judge