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



                                        
                        _________________

                          March 24, 1999
                        _________________


                         GSBCA 14681-RELO


                  In the Matter of BONNIE COATES


     Bonnie Coates, Fairfax, VA, Claimant.

     Stephen R. Ledford, Chief, Labor, Policies and Benefits Division, United States
Information Agency, Washington, DC, appearing for United States Information Agency.

     HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Bonnie Coates, asks for the Board's review of the denial of her request for
an extension of the eighteen-month limitation on travel and shipment of household goods
following her retirement from the Foreign Service on December 31, 1996.  For the reasons
stated, we conclude that the United States Information Agency (USIA) had no authority to
extend this deadline.

                            Background

     Ms. Coates first requested an indefinite extension of the time for shipment of
household effects and travel of employee and dependents to home leave point on October 13,
1997, some nine and one-half months after her retirement from the Foreign Service.  She
explained in her initial request that her husband was critically ill with chronic lung disease
and various other health-related complications.  At the time of Ms. Coates' retirement, she
was stationed in the Washington, DC area.  She did not expect, by June of 1998, to be able
to accomplish a move from the area because of the stress and potentially life-threatening
consequences for her spouse.  She presented the agency with several letters from physicians
explaining the gravity of her husband's medical problems and another letter from a physician
explaining that, for health reasons, Ms. Coates should not be expected to move for
approximately one year following her husband's death.  
     The agency responded, expressing sympathy for claimant's distressing personal
circumstances, but explaining that it lacked authority to alter the eighteen-month maximum
time period established in the regulation.  Ms. Coates has requested the Board's review of
this decision.

                            Discussion

     Although, like USIA, the Board sympathizes with claimant's situation, we must
conclude that the agency's response was proper.  Under the Foreign Service Act of 1980,
Foreign Service Officers who retire from the Foreign Service are entitled to the expenses of
travel and the costs of  shipment of household goods from the last duty station to the place
of retirement.  22 U.S.C.  4081(11) (1994).  The regulation implementing this provision is
promulgated by the Secretary of State in the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM).  The relevant
FAM provision prescribing the time limits for using this benefit states that:

                         a.  When an employee is separated from the Foreign
          Service and qualifies for travel and shipment of effects . . . , the
          actual departure of the employee, the departure of the
          employee's family, and the transportation of all effects shall not
          be deferred more than 12 months (6 months if only domestic
          travel is involved).  The time limitation will be calculated from
          the employee's last day in pay status, unless an earlier or later
          limitation is specified in the travel authorization or the time
          limitation is extended.  Such later time limit or extension shall
          not exceed 18 months after the employee's last day in pay status. 

6 FAM 133.2-2 (1997).      

     This regulation has been addressed by the Comptroller General on several occasions. 
In one case, somewhat similar to the case before us, the widow of a Foreign Service Officer,
who died while stationed in Washington, D.C., requested an extension of the eighteen-month
maximum time limit to beyond two years from the date of her husband's death to permit her
to settle the estate and to accommodate her child's schooling.  Teresita G. Bowman,
B-212278 (Sept. 2, 1983).  More recently, USIA asked if it could grant an exception to this
time limit on behalf of a retiree who had been rehired, through an appointment to the Senior
Executive Service (SES), to perform an overseas assignment.  At the time of his appointment
to the SES, the retiree had not had the time or opportunity to arrange for shipment of his
household goods to his retirement residence and would be precluded from meeting the
deadline as a result of his SES assignment.  Morton S. Smith, B-259543 (July 14, 1995).

     In both Bowman and Smith, the Comptroller General concluded that, regardless of
the individual circumstances, given the applicable regulations then in place, neither the
agency nor the General Accounting Office (GAO) had the authority to extend the deadline
established in this provision of the FAM.  This is because regulations like the FAM, 
promulgated under the authorization of statute, have the force and effect of law and may not
be waived by the agency or the Board.  See, e.g., Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO,
99-1 BCA  30,164 (1998); Gordon Giffin, GSBCA 14425-RELO, 98-2 BCA  30,100;
Murray Lumpkin, GSBCA 14513-TRAV, 98-2 BCA  30,042.  In this case, the regulation
itself contains no authority to grant exceptions on a case-by-case basis.  Absent such
authorization, no matter how extenuating the circumstances, neither USIA nor the Board may
extend or grant an exception to this time limit. 


                                   

                                   _________________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge