Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________________ December 10, 1998 _____________________ GSBCA 14655-RELO In the Matter of DOUGLAS V. SMITH Douglas V. Smith, Portsmouth, RI, Claimant. R. M. James, Jr., Director, Civilian Personnel Programs Division, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Navy. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. In order for a claimant to establish that a weight recorded on a Government bill of lading (GBL) for a shipment of household goods is incorrect, the claimant must provide clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud. In the absence of such evidence, we will deny the claim. Background In late 1996, the Department of Defense (DoD) authorized Douglas V. Smith, a civilian employee of DoD, to transfer from Florida to Rhode Island. Mr. Smith s travel authorization explained that DoD would arrange to ship his household goods to his new duty station using a GBL. The travel authorization provided that Mr. Smith would make an initial shipment of household goods from Tallahassee, Florida and then make a second shipment of household goods from Orange Park, Florida. The authorization also stated that the maximum weight allowance for a shipment of household goods was 18,000 pounds. In 1997, moving companies transported Mr. Smith s household goods from Florida to Rhode Island in two shipments. According to the GBLs issued by the moving companies, the initial shipment of Mr. Smith s household goods weighed 1,700 pounds and the second shipment weighed 20,620 pounds. The second shipment included 20,263 pounds of uncrated goods and 357 pounds of crated goods (clocks and a glass table top). Of the 357 pounds of crated goods, DoD determined that the net weight of Mr. Smith s household goods was 214 pounds and that the remaining 143 pounds consisted of packing material. DoD decided that Mr. Smith s household goods exceeded the 18,000 pound weight limit by 4,177 pounds ([1,700 + 20,263 + 214] - 18,000), and that he is responsible for paying the charges that are attributable to the 4,177 pounds. Mr. Smith asks us to review DoD s decision.[foot #] 1 Mr. Smith says that in a prior move, the weight of his household goods exceeded 18,000 pounds. In an effort to stay within the 18,000 pound weight limit during his move from Florida, Mr. Smith rented a truck, packed it with several thousand pounds of household goods, and drove the truck to Rhode Island himself. Mr. Smith also held a garage sale and donated other household items to charity. Mr. Smith says that DoD did not tell him that he would be charged for the weight of packing materials during his move to Rhode Island and, had he known this, he could have moved more of his household goods himself and reduced the weight of his shipments. Mr. Smith estimates that his two shipments to Rhode Island might have weighed 19,000 or 20,000 pounds. Mr. Smith believes that the weights recorded on the GBLs are inaccurate. Regarding the initial shipment, Mr. Smith says that the weight shown on the GBL (1,700 pounds) is out of line with statements made by the moving company concerning the weight of the shipment. Mr. Smith says that the moving company first estimated that the shipment would weigh between 800 and 850 pounds, and later said that the shipment weighed 1,168 pounds. Mr. Smith asks us to decide that the weight of the initial shipment was 532 pounds less (1,700 - 1,168) than the weight recorded on the GBL. Regarding the second shipment, Mr. Smith says that the alleged weight of the crated items (214 pounds) is excessive. He says that he recently weighed his clocks and found that they weighed only 111 pounds. Mr. Smith asks us to decide that the weight of the crated portion of the second shipment was 103 pounds less (214 - 111) than the alleged weight of that portion of the shipment. Mr. Smith says that the alleged weight of the uncrated items (20,263 pounds) seems excessive because the moving company s truck driver told him that the shipment would weigh 18,500 pounds at the most. Discussion ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Mr. Smith also asks us to grant a waiver of any debt that he owes to DoD. We cannot consider Mr. Smith s request because the authority to grant a waiver of indebtedness rests with the employing agency, and not with the Board. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Agencies can reimburse employees for the expenses of transporting household goods not in excess of 18,000 pounds net weight. 5 U.S.C. 5724(a)(2) (1994). This statutory limitation is implemented in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which applies to all civilian employees of the Federal Government, and in the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which apply to civilian employees of DoD. 41 CFR 302-8.2(a) (1997); JTR C8000-A. The FTR and the JTR explain how to determine the net weight of a shipment. The net weight of an uncrated shipment is the weight shown on the GBL, including packing materials. 41 CFR 302-8.2(c)(1); JTR C8000-B.1. The net weight of a crated shipment is sixty percent of the gross weight of the shipment. 41 CFR 302-8.2(c)(2); JTR C8000-B.2. In order for a claimant to establish that a weight recorded on a GBL for a shipment of household goods is incorrect, the claimant must provide clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud. Robert G. Gindhart, GSBCA 14288-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,405 (1997); Jayme A. Norris, GSBCA 13663-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,049. Weight estimates made by drivers, packers, inspectors, or owners are not sufficient to rebut the presumption that the recorded weight is correct. In addition, the presumption that the recorded weight is correct is not overcome by comparing the weight of a questioned move to the weights of prior or subsequent moves. Jayme A. Norris, GSBCA 13663-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,049; Ingrid Rodenberg, GSBCA 13729-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,027; Robert C. Berg, GSBCA 13655-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,939. Mr. Smith has not established by clear and substantial evidence that the weights recorded on the GBLs at issue here were erroneous or fraudulent. Even though Mr. Smith made an effort to reduce the net weight of his shipment because he knew that his household goods weighed more than 18,000 pounds during a prior move, this does not establish that the weights set out in the GBLs are incorrect. Although DoD did not advise Mr. Smith that the weight of packing material would be included in the net weight of his shipment, this is consistent with the regulations applicable to uncrated shipments. In addition, DoD s calculation of the net weight of Mr. Smith s crated shipment is consistent with the regulations. The moving companies estimates of the weights of Mr. Smith s shipments are not sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the weights set out on the GBLs are accurate. Mr. Smith is responsible for excess weight charges for 4,177 pounds. The FTR and the JTR provide that when the weight of household goods exceeds the employee s authorized weight allowance, the employee is required to pay the excess costs incurred for the shipment. 41 CFR 302-8.3(b)(5); JTR C4353. We deny Mr. Smith s claim. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge