________________________________________
 
                            January 27, 1998
                ________________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 13925-TRAV
 
 
                   In the Matter of LARRY D. MORRILL
 
 
        Larry D. Morrill, Blythe, CA, Claimant.
 
        Brenda  Barker,  Travel  Section,  Bureau  of   Reclamation,
   Department  of the Interior, Denver, CO, appearing for Department
   of the Interior.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant, Larry Morrill, seeks mileage reimbursement for use
   of a privately owned vehicle and subsistence expenses incurred on
   official business travel from Yuma, Arizona to Blythe, California
   during  his employment  with the  Department  of Interior  (DOI).
   According to his claim letter dated December  11, 1995, submitted
   to    the   General    Accounting   Office[foot #] 1,    claimant
   seeks $6,629.44  in costs incurred from February 1991 to November
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
   1[foot #]       Claimant   filed  a   claim   with  the   General
   Accounting    Office.    Congress    transferred   administrative
   responsibility  for claims settlement  functions set forth  in 31
   U.S.C.   3702  to the  Director of the  Office of  Management and
   Budget  (OMB).  Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996, Pub.
   L. No. 104-53,   211(a), 109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995).  The Director
   of OMB  delegated certain of these functions to the Administrator
   of General Services, who has redelegated the settlement functions
   pertaining to travel and relocation expense claims to the General
   Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals.  The authority
   to settle these  claims has more recently been  vested by statute
   in the  Administrator of  General Services.   General  Accounting
   Office  Act of  1996, Pub.  L. No.  104-316,   202(n),  110 Stat.
   3826, 3843 (1996).     
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   1992, for alleged agency violations of the Federal Travel Regula-
   tion (FTR).  For the reasons below, we dismiss the claim for lack
   of jurisdiction.  
 
 
        Claimant is currently  employed in a bargaining  unit repre-
   sented  by  the  National  Association  of  Government  Employees
   (NAGE), Local R14-143.  Effective  September 3, 1993, NAGE  Local
   R14-143 and DOI  entered into a collective  bargaining agreement,
   which DOI has submitted to  the Board.  The collective bargaining
   agreement sets  forth a  grievance procedure  applicable to  "any
   claimed violation,  misinterpretation, or  misapplication of  any
   law,  rule, or  regulation affecting  conditions of  employment."
   The collective  bargaining agreement  does not  exclude from  the
   grievance  procedure  claims  arising  under the  Federal  Travel
   Regulation.
 
        The collective bargaining  agreement specifies a  three-step
   grievance procedure with time frames  for each step of the griev-
   ance  up through  and including  review by  the project  manager.
   Should the grievance procedure fail, the grievance may be submit-
   ted to binding arbitration.
 
        In  Carter v.  Gibbs, 909  F.2d 1452  (Fed. Cir.  1990), the
   Court held that the Civil  Service Reform Act made the procedures
   set  forth in  a collective  bargaining  agreement the  exclusive
   procedure for  grievances falling within its coverage.    Federal
   employees who were subject to the collective bargaining agreement
   thereby lost the right to sue directly in federal court.   Id. at
   1456; see 5  U.S.C.   7121(a)(1) (1994).  Similarly, we have held
   that if a claim can be  resolved by using a collective bargaining
   agreement's grievance  procedure, this Board lacks  the authority
   to  settle the claim  using our administrative  procedures unless
   the agreement explicitly and  unambiguously excludes the disputed
   matter  from its procedures.   Brian  S. Brame,  GSBCA 14333-TRAV
   (Jan. 7, 1998); Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et. al., 97-
   2 BCA   29,091. 
 
        Claimant maintains that he  is not subject to  the grievance
   procedures  of the  collective  bargaining agreement  because the
   claims arose  before the  effective date of  the agreement.   The
   congressional intent in enacting the Civil Service Reform Act was
   to favor grievance  and arbitration procedures.   See Albright v.
   United States, 10  F.3d 790, 793 (Fed. Cir.  1993) (Civil Service
   Reform  Act applied retroactively  to all claims  not administra-
   tively pending  on the  effective date  of the Act).   Since  the
   collective  bargaining agreement  does  not specifically  exclude
   grievable matters arising before  the agreement's effective date,
   we conclude that the grievance procedure in the agreement and the
   exclusivity provisions of  the Civil Service Reform Act  apply as
   well.  This claim is dismissed.
 
 
                                 __________________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
 
                                 Board Judge