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



                      ______________________

                         December 5, 2005
                      ______________________


                         GSBCA 16737-RELO


                 In the Matter of MICHAEL S. ROSS


     Michael S. Ross, Kingston, Jamaica, Claimant.

     Paul B. Dean, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, Washington, DC,
appearing for Department of State.  

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Michael S. Ross, a Department of State Foreign Service Officer, has requested that
the Board review his agency's decision to assess charges in the amount of $1862.02 for
shipping unaccompanied air baggage (UAB) in excess of the allowable weight limit.  The
shipment occurred in connection with Mr. Ross' October 2004 transfer from Astana,
Kazakhstan, to Kingston, Jamaica.  For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the agency's
decision.

                            Background

     Pursuant to his transfer, Mr. Ross was authorized to ship 7200 pounds of household
effects and 600 pounds of UAB.  At the time the UAB was packed, Mr. Ross was given an
inventory by the packers stating that the UAB was estimated to weigh "556."  According to
Mr. Ross, the inventory did not state whether the weight was measured in kilograms or
pounds.

     In fact, the UAB weighed 1193 pounds -- 593 pounds in excess of the maximum.  The
agency billed Mr. Ross for the excess weight, and he has asked the Board to review that
decision.  Mr. Ross believes that he should not have to pay for the excess weight because the
agency failed to notify him that the shipment was overweight.

                            Discussion

     The Department of State's Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) allows a transferred
employee to ship UAB for himself and his eligible family members, with a maximum weight
allowance that varies according to the number of persons traveling.  Because Mr. Ross
traveled with two family members, he was authorized to ship a maximum of 600 pounds of
UAB.  6 FAM 148.2-1(a). [Foot # 1 ]  The FAM also provides:

****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ]       Subsequent to Mr. Ross' transfer, the Department of State re-numbered the
FAM.  The regulations discussed in this opinion now appear at 14 FAM 611-613.
****************** Footnote End ************


     Employees are responsible for any transportation, demurrage, storage, customs
     cartage, or other costs incurred by them or their agents which are not
     authorized by laws and regulations governing the shipment of effects or
     unaccompanied air baggage (UAB) at U.S. Government expense.

Id. 162.3(a).  "Employees should know their shipment limitations and the net weights
involved."  Id. 162.3-1(a).

     Mr. Ross maintains that the agency should pay the excess charges because it failed
to inform him that the actual weight of the UAB shipment from Astana exceeded the packer's
estimate.  To support his position, Mr. Ross relies on a provision in the FAM that states, "[I]f
a shipment is known to be in excess of the allowance, it is not to be forwarded by the
originating post until the employee is notified of the excess weight, is informed of the
difference to be paid for the cost of shipping, and is told which options may be exercised." 
6 FAM 162.3-3(a).

     Mr. Ross' reliance on this provision is misplaced.  Read as a whole, it is clear that the
FAM places the responsibility for ensuring that a shipment does not exceed applicable
weight limitations squarely on the shoulders of the employee:

     The regulations . . . state specifically that employees are responsible for any
     excess costs not authorized by the regulations.  In addition, employees are
     responsible for informing the packer or carrier of the maximum weights and
     providing written instructions regarding what to do if the shipment exceeds the
     weight specified.  The fact that the regulations also state that the agency will
     notify an employee "when possible" "if a shipment is known to be in excess of
     the allowance," does not obligate the agency to pay for the excess weight, as
     [the claimant] maintains.  We read these provisions as stating that the agency
     will attempt to assist transferred employees where possible, rather than as a
     total reversal of the regulatory scheme.

Mark Burnett, GSBCA 16578-RELO, 05-1 BCA   32,958.

     Finally, even if the provision cited by Mr. Ross could be read as obligating the agency
to pay excess weight charges in certain circumstances, those circumstances would not exist
here.  Mr. Ross was informed by the packer that the UAB was estimated to weigh "556," in
a country in which use of the metric system is the standard, yet he failed to investigate
whether the number referred to pounds or kilograms.  Certainly, Mr. Ross bears substantial
responsibility for shipping 1193 pounds of UAB, which works out to approximately
542 kilograms.

                             Decision

     The claim is denied.




                                   ____________________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge