Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                       _________________________
 
                             July 23, 1999
                       _________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14936-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of JAMES M. BREWER
 
 
        James M. Brewer, Kansas City, MO, Claimant.
 
        Lt.  Col.  Donald  C. Olson,  Commander,  Seneca  Army Depot
   Activity,  Department of  the Army,  Romulus,  NY, appearing  for
   Department of the Army.
 
   DeGRAFF, Board Judge.
 
        We lack  the authority to resolve this  claim for relocation
   expenses   because  the  employee  is  covered  by  a  collective
   bargaining  agreement  that  provides  the exclusive  method  for
   resolving  the dispute  between  the  employee  and  the  agency.
   Therefore, we dismiss the claim.  
 
                               Background
 
        In  1998, James  M. Brewer  was a  civilian employee  of the
   Department  of the  Army at  the  Seneca Army  Depot Activity  in
   Romulus,  New York.   Because  Seneca was designated  for closure
   pursuant  to the  1995 Base  Realignment and  Closure study,  Mr.
   Brewer  looked for employment  elsewhere and accepted  a position
   with the  United States Marine  Corps in  Kansas City,  Missouri.
   The Marine  Corps told Mr.  Brewer when he accepted  the position
   that it  would not reimburse him  for his moving expenses.   This
   did  not concern  Mr. Brewer  because he  expected that  the Army
   would reimburse  him for those  expenses.  After he  accepted the
   position  with the  Marine Corps,  Mr. Brewer  asked the  Army to
   reimburse  him for  the cost of  a house hunting  trip (per diem,
   rental  car,  airline  ticket),  temporary  quarters  subsistence
   expenses,  the  cost   of  moving  a  privately   owned  vehicle,
   miscellaneous  expenses, and  household goods moving  and storage
   expenses.   The Army decided not to  reimburse Mr. Brewer for his
   moving  expenses, and  Mr. Brewer  asks us  to review  the Army s
   decision.  
 
        Mr. Brewer was a member of a  union at Seneca, and the union
   and the  Army were parties  to a collective  bargaining agreement
   that covered Mr. Brewer.  The agreement provides that a grievance
   is any complaint either by an employee  or by the union on behalf
   of an  employee concerning any  matter relating to  employment or
   concerning   any   alleged   violation,   misinterpretation,   or
   misapplication  of   any  law,  rule,  or   regulation  affecting
   conditions of employment.   The agreement also  provides that its
   grievance procedure shall be the exclusive procedure available to
   the union and the employee  for resolving grievances.  Mr. Brewer
   followed  the procedures  set out  in  the collective  bargaining
   agreement  and  initiated  the grievance  procedure.    The union
   informed Mr. Brewer  that it was unable to  resolve the grievance
   satisfactorily.  
 
 
                               Discussion
 
        We have recognized on numerous occasions that if an employee
   is covered by a collective bargaining agreement that mandates the
   use of a grievance  procedure for resolving disputes between  the
   employee and  the agency,  we lack the  authority to  resolve the
   employee s claim,  unless the  agreement  explicitly and  clearly
   excludes the claim from its procedures.  Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA
   13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA   29,091; accord Carla Dee Gallegos,
   GSBCA 14609-RELO, 99-1  BCA   30,300; 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  1476
   (Fed. Cir. 1997).  
 
        The collective bargaining agreement that  covered Mr. Brewer
   requires that  its procedure  be used  for resolving  grievances.
   Even  though  Mr.  Brewer s  union  was not  able  to  achieve  a
   satisfactory resolution of his  claim, the claim is  not excluded
   from  the  agreement,  and  the  benefits  he  requests  are  not
   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 procedure  set out in  the
   collective   bargaining  agreement   constitutes  the   exclusive
   administrative  mechanism available  for  resolving Mr.  Brewer s
   claim for  reimbursement.  We  dismiss the claim because  we lack
   the authority to consider it.
 
                                      __________________________________
                                      MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
 
                                      Board Judge