Board of Contract Appeals
General Services Administration
Washington, D.C. 20405
________________________________
December 13, 2000
________________________________
GSBCA 15257-RELO
In the Matter of TERRY S. JONES
Terry S. Jones, Kaiserslautern, Germany, Claimant.
Patrick T. Beckerle, Deputy Director for Army Finance,
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Europe Operating
Location, appearing for Department of the Army.
WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
Claimant seeks reimbursement of $3422.89, representing the
cost of a second shipment of his household goods (HHG) in
conjunction with a permanent change of station from Berlin,
Germany, to Kaiserslautern, Germany. The agency denied
reimbursement because the second move of HHG did not occur within
a two-year period from his date of transfer. Claimant contends
that he was never advised that he had to ship the second
installment of his HHG within that time frame.
The agency is correct. Because the governing regulations do
not provide for an extension of the two-year period for shipping
HHG, the claim must be denied.
Background
On February 12, 1996, claimant, a civilian employee with the
Department of the Army, was issued an authorization for a
permanent change of station from Pirmasens, Germany, to
Kaiserslautern, Germany. Claimant was authorized shipment and
temporary storage of his HHG not to exceed 18,000 pounds. He was
also authorized transportation of one dependent, his wife.
On June 10, 1998, claimant's February 12, 1996,
authorization was amended to substitute Berlin, Germany, for
Pirmasens and to note that the dependent's travel would be
delayed and not concurrent with that of the employee. On the
amended authorization, claimant's reporting date was not changed;
it remained June 30, 1996.
Claimant moved the first installment of his HHG on
September 27, 1996, within the two-year period and was reimbursed
for this. However, claimant contends that he was not counseled
by the agency that he had to complete the move of the HHG within
two years. Nor was claimant ever provided with a Personal
Property Counseling Checklist, DD Form 1797. The agency contends
that claimant "was clearly counseled . . . when he received the
amendment, that all transportation movement must be completed by
30 June 1998, or the entitlement would be lost."
On June 10, 1998, claimant met with the Army civilian
personnel officer to discuss the second move of his HHG from
Berlin to Kaiserslautern. That same day claimant made an
appointment for his move to occur on June 24, 1998. On June 24,
however, he set a new move date for September 1998, and no one
advised him that his move had to have been completed by the end
of June 1998. Also on June 24, 1998, claimant signed a DOD
Form 1299 entitled "Storage of Personal Property," with scheduled
dates of pickup originally stated to be September 28 and 29,
1998. However, those dates were crossed out and the dates
March 18 and 19, 1999, were penned in. In early September 1998,
claimant's wife decided that she was unable to make a move in
September due to her work schedule, so she requested a new move
date in March 1999, and the Army personnel approved that new
date--again without advising claimant that he had to have his
move completed by June 1998.
The move was completed in March 1999. On September 24,
1999, claimant received a memorandum requesting a refund of
charges for shipment of personal property in the amount of
$3407.89, representing the cost of the March 1999 shipment of
HHG, plus a $15 administrative fee, for a total of $3422.89. The
memorandum advised claimant that in order for the Government to
pay for the transportation of his HHG such transportation had to
occur within two years after the effective date of his transfer,
here on or before June 30, 1998.
Discussion
As a civilian employee of the Department of Defense,
Mr. Jones is subject to the provisions of the Joint Travel
Regulations (JTR). These regulations state:
All travel, including that for dependents, and
transportation, including that for HHG allowed under
these regulations, should be accomplished as soon as
possible. Allowable travel and transportation must
begin within 2 years from the effective date of an
employee's transfer or appointment except that:
1. the 2-year period is exclusive of time spent
on furlough for an employee who begins active military
service before the expiration of such period . . . .
2. the 2-year period doesn't include any time
during which travel and transportation isn't feasible
due to shipping restrictions for an employee who is
transferred or appointed to or from an OCONUS PDS
[outside the continental United States permanent duty
station]; and
3. the 2-year period is extended for an
additional period of time up to 1 year when the 2-year
time limitation for completion of residence
transactions is extended under par. C 14000-2.
JTR C1057.[foot #] 1
Clearly, the first exception set out above is inapplicable
to Mr. Jones since he is not an employee on active military
service. Nor is the second exception applicable. Although
Mr. Jones was transferred between duty stations in Germany, there
is no showing that any shipping restrictions rendered completion
of his move infeasible within two years. Rather, the second move
was delayed solely due to claimant's personal circumstances,
i.e., his wife's employment, thus making the second exception
inapplicable. Mr. Jones is likewise not covered by the third
exception, since there is no indication in the record that any
real estate transactions warranted an extension.
The Board addressed a similar situation in James F. Meyer,
GSBCA 14939-RELO, 99-2 BCA 30,490, and concluded that it could
not grant an extension of the two-year period for completing
transportation of HHG where none of the exceptions in the JTR
applied. The Board explained:
We are left, therefore, with the hard fact that the
JTR, which govern in this case, simply make no
provision for an extension of the two-year period for
the completion of [claimant's] authorized relocation.
In the absence of an exception to the general rule set
out in the regulations, the request must be denied.
This is the conclusion reached by his agency. The
decision is correct, for neither the agency nor this
Board has the authority to waive the applicability of
the regulation. It is well established that, absent a
specific provision in statute or regulation which might
permit it under certain circumstances, neither an
agency nor the Board has the authority to waive the
applicability of travel statutes or regulations for any
individual federal employee who is subject to them.
Meyer, 99-2 BCA at 150,603 (citations omitted).
----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
[foot #] 1 A similar provision appears in the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 306-1.6 (1997).
----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
As in Meyer, we lack the authority to grant claimant an
extension of the two-year period.
Decision
The agency determination is affirmed, and Mr. Jones' request
is denied.
________________________________
MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
Board Judge