Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ August 31, 1999 ____________________ GSBCA 14892-RELO In the Matter of KANWAR H. KHAN Kanwar H. Khan, Fairfax, VA, Claimant. Bruce Ghatti, Chairman, Committee for Exceptions, Office of Administrative Services, Travel and Transportation Division, United States Agency for International Development, Washington, DC, appearing for United States Agency for International Development. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Dr. Kanwar H. Khan, a former employee of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) disputes charges for additional shipping expenses applicable to the transportation of his household effects (HHE) from South Africa to the Washington, D.C. area. Upon his return to the United States, claimant's HHE were shipped to Seattle, Washington in transit to Fullerton, California, his designated home of record. When the HHE arrived in Seattle, claimant asked the agency to direct them to the Washington, D.C. area instead of California. This increased the cost of shipping his HHE by some $2803.04, an amount which the agency has required claimant to reimburse it. Claimant believes he should not have to pay the additional amount and has asked the Board to review the agency's denial of his claim. For the reasons stated, there is no basis for the Board to overturn the agency's decision. Background In June 1994, Dr. Khan was posted as a Foreign Service Officer assigned to USAID, at the American Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa. Just prior to his assignment in Pretoria, he worked for USAID in Accra, Ghana. At the time he was stationed in South Africa, claimant designated his home of record to be Fullerton, California. In 1996, he was separated from USAID pursuant to a reduction in force. His HHE were initially shipped by USAID to Seattle, Washington, to be sent on to Fullerton. Dr. Khan asked USAID to ship to Fullerton because at the time of the reduction in force he did not know where he would be employed upon his return to the United States. After the HHE were shipped, but before action was taken to forward the HHE from Seattle to Fullerton, Dr. Khan found employment in the Washington, D.C. area. He then asked to change his official home of record to Fairfax, Virginia. He also instructed the agency to ship his HHE to Fairfax and not to Fullerton. USAID shipped the HHE to Fairfax, but takes the position that because Dr. Khan did not seek to change his home of record until after he separated from the agency, he must pay the increased cost of shipping to Fairfax instead of to Fullerton. Upon receiving a bill for the additional amount, claimant requested that the USAID Travel and Transportation Division's Committee for Exceptions review his request for relief based on the extenuating circumstances of his return to the United States. Dr. Khan pointed out that when he received his separation notice, he had very little time to make arrangements to return to the United States and did not know at the time where he would find employment. It was not until his arrival in Washington in early August 1996, for career transition training, that Dr. Khan was able to ascertain that employment opportunities would be optimal in the Washington, D.C. area. When he did, he promptly notified the USAID personnel in Pretoria who were processing his separation and relocation to the United States. Claimant contends that because of the extenuating circumstances -- the reduction in force and his rapid departure from South Africa -- he should not be required to pay the extra charges. The Committee on Exceptions reviewed Dr. Khan's claim, but was not persuaded that relief should be granted. The Committee noted that when the reduction in force was instituted, employees were instructed to take care in designating a separation address to be certain of its accuracy. Employees were granted until their last day in service in Pretoria to change their official residences. Other employees similarly affected by the reduction in force chose to have their HHE held in Baltimore until they could determine a final delivery point. Claimant preferred at the time of separation to have his HHE shipped immediately to California -- as such, the agency is of the view that claimant should pay the difference between the constructive cost of shipping his HHE from Seattle to Fullerton and the cost incurred in shipping the HHE from Seattle to Fairfax. Discussion Under the Foreign Service Act of 1980, members of the Foreign Service who are stationed abroad are entitled, upon separation from the Service, to be reimbursed the cost of transportation of household effects to the place where the member will reside. 22 U.S.C. 4081(11) (1994). Under volume 6, chapter 100 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM), which implements the travel and related provisions of the Foreign Service Act, members of the Foreign Service may have HHE shipped at Government expense: to and from points listed on the employee's travel authorization, from authorized points of storage to onward post, and from post to authorized point of storage. Any shipments to alternate destinations, or from alternate origins, will be made on a cost-constructive basis, with the employee paying any excess costs. 6 FAM 162.2(b). Here, upon separation from the Service, claimant was asked to designate his preference for shipment of HHE. The agency states that separated employees were advised to select a destination carefully and were permitted to ship HHE to Baltimore for reshipment to another destination when a permanent residence could not be identified at the time of departure. Claimant designated California, rather than directing a temporary shipment to Baltimore. This increased the cost of shipping the HHE to Fairfax, and under the regulation, excess costs resulting from shipments to alternate destinations are the responsibility of the employee. The agency's decision accords with the applicable provisions of statute and regulation. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Board to provide the relief requested by claimant. ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge