Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 October 26, 1999 GSBCA 15047-RELO In the Matter of JULIA W. SAUNDERS Julia W. Saunders, California City, CA, Claimant. Lt. Col. R. Andrew Kiracofe, Acting Chief, Traffic Management Division, Directorate of Transportation, Department of the Air Force, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Air Force. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Julia W. Saunders, is a civilian employee of the Army. In December 1998, claimant accomplished a permanent change of station (PCS) from Herlong, California to Edwards Air Force Base, California. She has requested that this Board review the agency s denial of her request for reimbursement for the movement of her mobile home. Factual Background On December 2, 1998, a DD Form 1615, Request and Authorization for DOD Civilian Permanent Duty Travel, was issued to Ms. Saunders, authorizing travel and transportation entitlements for her PCS. Movement of household goods (HHG) was indicated on the orders. Claimant communicated with an individual of the Traffic Management Office (TMO) at Beale AFB via phone and fax to discuss entitlements and arrangement for movement of HHG. Claimant did not advise the individual in the TMO that she had a mobile home, and she was not counseled on the option of moving a mobile home in lieu of HHG. Claimant was authorized the normal HHG entitlements by the TMO as if she did not own a mobile home. Due to the distance involved between the sites, both parties agreed to conduct the counseling by telephone. On December 29, 1998, claimant had 9810 pounds of HHG picked up from her residence in Herlong, California. Upon arrival at Edwards AFB on January 9, 1999, claimant inquired as to the movement of her mobile home. At that time she was advised by the TMO at Edwards AFB that she was not entitled to move a mobile home at Government expense because the Government had paid for the shipment of her HHG. On February 12, 1999, her orders dated December 2, 1998 were amended to reflect an entitlement to move a mobile home. However, by letter of June 4, 1999, the TMO at Edwards AFB again advised claimant that she was not entitled to ship a mobile home because she had already shipped HHG. The agency was requested to explain to the Board why the orders had been amended twice with regard to entitlement to movement of the mobile home. The Air Force responded as follows: The absence of the Mobile home entitlement in the original travel order as well as the absence of any mention of the entitlement by the TMO, make it plausible that the member was never advised of the option to ship a Mobile Home in lieu of HHG. The agency Headquarters does not have statutory authority to waive the requirement/restrictions of the JTR and provide for government funded movement of the mobile home after HHG have been shipped. While the Air Force stated that it did not have the statutory authority to waive the provisions of the JTR, it made the following recommendation: We recommend that upon presentation of a paid bill for the movement of the mobile home that the GSBCA rule in favor of the member and authorize her expenses up to the Government Constructive Cost of moving the remaining weight of her JTR HHGs entitlement (8,190 lbs.) Computation: Full JTR weight allowance 18,000 lbs Weight moved on GBL 9,810 lbs Remaining entitlement 8,190 lbs (Equals 81.9 CWT) Line Haul Rate $13.52 per CWT Government Constructive Costs: $28.87 multiplied by 81.9 CWT =$2,364.45 Should the Board chose [sic] to disagree with this recommendation there will be no statutory authority for the claimant to receive expenses for movement of her mobile home. Discussion Statute provides that a federal employee who otherwise would be entitled to transportation of household goods and personal effects is entitled "instead of that transportation" to a reasonable allowance for transportation of a mobile dwelling (if the mobile dwelling is transported by the employee) or commercial transportation of the mobile dwelling at Government expense. 5 U.S.C. 5724(b) (Supp. III 1997). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), paragraph 302-7.1(a), which implements this statute, provides: An employee who is entitled to transportation of his/her household goods under part 302-8 shall, instead of such transportation, be entitled to an allowance, as provided in this part, for the transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence. . . . If an employee is not eligible to receive an allowance for movement of his/her mobile home, he/she may be eligible to receive an allowance based on the transportation of his/her household goods under part 302-8. 41 CFR 302-7.1(a) (1997). Similarly, the Department of Defense's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) for that agency's civilian personnel state in relevant part: "an employee who is entitled to movement of household goods (HHG) may, in lieu of such transportation, be authorized transportation of a mobile home for use as a residence." JTR C10000. Apparently, the agency authorized the shipment of the mobile home after the movement of the HHG, recognizing the inequity of this situation. Before the mobile home could be shipped, however, the agency determined that since the HHG had been moved, claimant could not be entitled to movement of both the HHG and the mobile home at Government expense. The agency has now made a recommendation that claimant receive compensation for the constructive cost of moving the remaining weight of her JTR HHG entitlement. This Board does not have the authority to make the determination the agency suggests, however, because a mobile home is not HHG and may not be considered such for purposes of the travel regulations. We do see a way to partially remedy the inequity in claimant's situation. The agency can retroactively amend an employee's travel orders when the facts and circumstances clearly demonstrate that some provision previously determined and definitely intended has been omitted through error or inadvertence. Brian P. Byrnes, GSBCA 14195-TRAV, et al., 98-1 BCA 29,535. Here, the orders could be amended to rescind the authorization for shipment of HHG and substitute authorization for shipment of the mobile home. If transportation of the home is more expensive than transportation of the HHG, this would provide claimant some relief. Claimant would then be required to return to the Government the funds advanced for shipment of the HHG. The agency may wish to consider exercising the authority it has under law to waive repayment of moneys if it concludes that collection would be "against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States" and if there is no indication of "fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith" on the part of the person whose debt is requested to be waived. 5 U.S.C. 5584 (a)(2)(A) (Supp. III 1997). Pursuant to this statute, the head of the agency from which the claim arose may waive a debt of $1500 or less. The Comptroller General previously had the authority with regard to debts which exceeded this amount. That waiver authority, insofar as it pertains to claims affecting the executive branch of Government, was transferred from the Comptroller General to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Pub. L. No. 104-316, 103(d)(3), 110 Stat. 3826, 3828 (1996). On December 17, 1996, the Director of OMB delegated this authority to the agencies from which the original claims arose. Accordingly, waiver authority for all claims, regardless of amount, now resides in the head of the agency from which the claim arose. _________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge