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


                                             

                                   _____________________

                          March 31, 2005
                      ______________________


                         GSBCA 16396-RELO


               In the Matter of TIMOTHY PETER BAKER


     Timothy Peter Baker, Raleigh, NC, Claimant.

     Edward T. Nasalik, Executive Director, Heartland Finance Center, General Services
Administration, Kansas City, MO, appearing for General Services Administration.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     In a letter filed with the Board on January 21, 2005, claimant, Timothy Peter Baker,
requested the Board to reconsider its decision dated November 2, 2004.   The Board's rules 
require that such a request be submitted within thirty days of the date of the Board's decision. 
Under our rules, therefore, Mr. Baker should have submitted this request by December 2,
2005.  41 CFR 6104.7 (2003).  Although the Board may, when it is appropriate, agree to
entertain an untimely request for reconsideration, this is not such a case. 

     In early November 2004, the Board sent a copy of its decision by certified mail to the 
address provided by Mr. Baker, a post office box in Raleigh, North Carolina.  In late
November, the United States Postal Service returned the decision to the Board as unclaimed. 
Near the end of December, Mr. Baker called the Board's Clerk's office and asked if a
decision had been issued in his case.  The Clerk's office sent another copy of the decision to
the same address, via regular mail.  The envelope was postmarked December 29, 2004.  Mr.
Baker provided a copy of the envelope sent by the Board, with a stamp mark showing it to
have been received by him on January 12, 2005, as part of his submission seeking
reconsideration.  He offered no explanation as to why the copy of the decision originally sent
to him by certified mail was not claimed.

     The Board has previously pointed out that failure to collect certified mail does not
entitle a claimant to an extension of the Board's filing deadlines.  James T. Abbott, GSBCA
15025-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,446.  Thus, claimant's request is untimely.  See id.; Brent A.
Myers, GSBCA 15466-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,458; Janice M. Gentile, GSBCA 14457-
RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,644.  Claimant has not pointed to any mitigating circumstances that
might excuse his failure to pick up his certified mail, or that might otherwise serve as an
appropriate reason for granting an exception to the rule and entertaining the request despite
its untimeliness.  

     Finally, we note that Mr. Baker's request is inappropriate in any event.  The decision
issued by the Board simply agreed that, based on the orders issued, Mr. Baker was entitled
to be reimbursed for the shipment of his household goods under the commuted rate system. 
The decision also recognized that the Federal Travel Regulation requires specific
documentation to support such a claim.  Such documentation was not evident in the materials
submitted to the Board in support of the underlying claim.  Claimant should submit to his
agency another formal request for payment, including and identifying all documentation that
he maintains satisfies the pertinent regulations.  If the agency asserts that the documentation
is insufficient to permit reimbursement under the commuted rate system, claimant may then
seek review of that ruling by initiating a new case. 

                             Decision

     The request for reconsideration is denied as untimely.




                                   ________________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge