November 28, 1997 GSBCA 13946-TRAV In the Matter of GEORGE E. LINGLE George E. Lingle, Kailua, HI, Claimant. D. Lisenby, Director, Financial Policy and Systems Directorate, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Kansas City, MO, appearing for Department of Defense. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Both claimant and the agency have requested reconsideration of the Board's previous decision, George E. Lingle, GSBCA 13946- TRAV (Sept. 18, 1997). In that decision, we held that claimant was not entitled to compensation for round-trip renewal agreement travel in July 1992 from his overseas duty station to his permanent duty station (San Diego, California), as his tour of duty did not expire until August 1992. We also held that claimant was entitled to compensation for round-trip renewal agreement travel in December 1994, which was accomplished between tours of duty. As stated below, we affirm our decision as to claimant's entitlement, but based upon additional information submitted by the agency concerning prior compensation for other travel taken by claimant, we find that the agency has fulfilled its obligation to compensate claimant for the travel to which he is entitled. Board Rule 407, governing requests for reconsideration, reads in relevant part: The request for reconsideration should state the reasons why the Board should consider the request. Requests for reconsideration are not favored. Mere disagreement with a decision or reargument of points already made are not sufficient grounds for reconsidering the decision. Claimant's motion contains a reargument of points already made, together with additional arguments (some which are factually erroneous) which could have been made previously. Claimant's motion for reconsideration reads, in relevant part: July 1990 was the last return travel I had taken . . . . I was eligible for return travel in July 1992 since I had completed the 24 month contract period and the second should have been July 1994. . . . The [Board] stated that my tour had expired in June 1992[[foot #] 1] which is incorrect according to the last transportation agreement I signed prior to denied entitlements. I sign[ed] this transportation agreement on 16 July, 1990, which would make my family eligible for contract renewal travel in July of 1992 which was the date my family took voluntary travel. Even if there was a one month discrepancy, in Chapter C4155 paragraph 2 of the JTR [Joint Travel Regulations], a 90 day adjustment in the renewal travel agreement may be made. Example, because my family traveled two months before completion of my previous contract, I signed a new contract renewal agreement with Marine Corps Base Hawaii in Aug 1997 for a 26 month period. The paragraph to which claimant refers reads, in relevant part: Delay of Renewal Agreement Travel. . . . If the employee is engaged upon a project which will be completed within a reasonable time, there is a temporary shortage of personnel, or for other cogent reasons, the employee may be requested to postpone his renewal agreement travel for a reasonable period not in excess of 90 days. Likewise, an employee may request an extension of the initial tour to permit scheduling of leave to accommodate slack periods, school vacations, other personal or job related reasons acceptable to and approved by the overseas command concerned . . . . While tour renewal agreement travel is ordinarily performed between tours of duty outside CONUS . . . travel at a later date within a tour of duty may be authorized or approved by the overseas command concerned . . . . In such case the employee's tour of duty will be extended by the period of time required to perform the tour renewal agreement travel. Claimant's argument lacks merit. While he is correct that he signed his renewal agreement on July 16, 1990, his tour of duty began on August 24, 1990, the date he reported to his overseas permanent duty station, as indicated in the agreement, after his return travel in July 1990. The commencement date of a ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 This is incorrect. The decision stated that the tour expired in August. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- tour of duty is clearly set forth in JTR C4006, which reads, in relevant part: Date Tours of Duty Begin . . . . C. Employment Overseas . . . . 2. Under Renewal Agreement. The tour of duty under a renewal agreement begins on the date the employee reports for duty at the overseas duty station following his/her completion of renewal agreement travel unless tour renewal agreement travel is delayed and authorized or approved to be performed within a tour of duty . . . . Accordingly, as we held in our previous decision, claimant was not eligible for renewal agreement travel until his tour expired twenty-four months later, and the trip taken in July 1992 occurred before his tour expired. The JTR provision to which he refers concerns delayed renewal agreement travel, and does not contemplate allowing an employee to take renewal agreement travel before the tour expires, as claimant did in July 1992. Claimant has not stated valid grounds for reconsideration of our previous decision. Claimant's motion for reconsideration is therefore denied. As we held previously, claimant is not entitled to compensation for travel accomplished in 1992, but is entitled to compensation for the travel accomplished in 1994. The agency's motion for reconsideration contains additional information which had not been submitted previously. The agency informs the Board that after claimant's travel rights were reinstated on July 22, 1995, he was offered and he accepted a round trip to San Diego in November 1995 at Government expense. The agency maintains that even though it was "delinquent in resolving Mr. Lingle's problem, [the matter] was eventually resolved in his favor and he was offered a trip to San Diego, California, his home of record, which he took in Nov 1995. We, therefore, feel that we have fulfilled our obligation to Mr. Lingle." This information does not affect our decision as to claimant's entitlement to compensation for travel in December 1994. He was entitled to compensation by operation of law between his tours of duty, as explained in our previous decision. However, pursuant to applicable statute and regulation, claimant would not be entitled to receive compensation for two trips within eleven months of each other. Accordingly, we grant the agency's request for reconsideration. As claimant has already received compensation for travel in November 1995, we find that this payment to claimant fulfills the agency's obligation to claimant for renewal agreement travel for the period at issue, and no further compensation is due claimant for his travel in December 1994. _______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge