Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                     ________________________

                        February 24, 1999
                    _________________________


                         GSBCA 14609-RELO


               In the Matter of CARLA DEE GALLEGOS


     Carla Dee Gallegos, Ashford, CT, Claimant.

     Robert Lee, Counsel and Agency Representative, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, Washington, DC, appearing for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

     HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Carla Dee Gallegos, an employee of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC), seeks reimbursement for certain costs incurred in connection with her
transfer and relocation from Irvine, California to the Hartford, Connecticut area.  The FDIC
has responded by asking the Board to dismiss this matter because claimant is covered by a
collective bargaining agreement, entered into between the FDIC and the National Treasury
Employees Union (NTEU), which provides the exclusive method for resolving this dispute.
A review of that agreement confirms that the FDIC position is correct and that, as a result,
the Board lacks authority to resolve this claim.

                            Background

     Claimant is a limited term, temporary FDIC employee currently assigned to the
FDIC's Northeast Service Center (NESC) in Hartford, Connecticut.  In early 1997, claimant 
was a limited term employee assigned to the FDIC's Western Service Center in Irvine,
California, which was expected to close in September of that year.  In anticipation of the
California center's closing, claimant applied for a credit specialist position in Hartford, which
had been posted in February 1997.  She was offered and accepted the position at NESC in
July 1997.  In connection with claimant's relocation, her household goods were shipped to
Connecticut at agency expense.  Claimant herself relocated by driving cross-country, over
a sixteen-day period, beginning on August 30, 1997 and ending on September 15, 1997.  

     Prior to the move, in an electronic mail message dated July 24, 1997, the Chief of the
FDIC's Travel and Relocation Section explained to claimant that, under the FDIC's General
Travel Regulations (GTR), as a group II employee she was entitled to temporary lodging of
up to a maximum of ten days and that, if driving, she must travel at least 300 miles per day. 
Nonetheless, claimant asserts that she should be reimbursed for all of her expenses
associated with the cross-country trip, which exceeded the ten-day limit established in the
GTR.  She submitted a voucher for the amount of $3508.06; the agency paid her only
$2,988.84, which is the amount it deems reimbursable under the GTR.  She then requested
the Board's review.

     The FDIC has supplied a copy of the current collective bargaining agreement in effect
between the agency and the NTEU.  Ms. Gallegos is a limited term nonprofessional
employee assigned to one of the divisions covered by the agreement and thus is a covered
employee.  The agreement between FDIC and NTEU provides all covered employees with
an exclusive grievance procedure, including binding arbitration before a third party neutral,
to resolve disagreements concerning, inter alia, travel and relocation benefits.

                            Discussion

     The FDIC contends that the Board has no authority to entertain this claim because it
is covered by the collective bargaining agreement entered into by FDIC and NTEU.  The
Board has recognized on numerous occasions that if a claim concerning travel expenses is
subject to resolution under the terms of a grievance procedure mandated within a collective
bargaining agreement, we lack the authority to settle the claim using our administrative
procedures unless the agreement explicitly and clearly excludes the claim from its
procedures. Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA  29,092; accord
Harold S. Rubinstein, GSBCA 14667-RELO, 99-1 BCA  30,113; Bernard F. Anderson,
GSBCA 14438-TRAV, 98-2 BCA  29,924; William A. Rogers, GSBCA 14357-TRAV (Feb.
12, 1998); Claudia J. Fleming-Howlett, GSBCA 14236-RELO, 98-1 BCA  29,534; Larry
D. Morrill, GSBCA 13925-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,528; True Carter, GSBCA 14131-TRAV,
98-1 BCA  29,530; Brian S. Brame, GSBCA 14333-TRAV (Jan. 8, 1998); Henry E. Carroll,
Jr., GSBCA 14206-TRAV (Dec. 29, 1997); William A. Watkins, GSBCA 13970-TRAV, 97-
2 BCA  29,222; see also Dunklebarger v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 130 F.3d 1376
(Fed. Cir. 1997).  This claim is not excluded from the collective bargaining agreement.  Nor
are the benefits in dispute precluded by statute.  See John B. Courtnay, GSBCA 14508-
TRAV, 98-2 BCA  29,791 (reimbursement of daily commuting expenses between home and
official duty station precluded by statute and thus cannot be the subject of a collective
bargaining grievance procedure).  Therefore, the grievance procedures set out in the
collective bargaining agreement constitute the exclusive administrative mechanism available
for resolving Ms. Gallegos' claim for reimbursement.  The Board lacks the authority to
consider this claim.  Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.




                                   _________________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge