January 7, 1998
                                              
 
 
                            GSBCA 14333-TRAV
 
 
                    In the Matter of BRIAN S. BRAME
 
 
        Brian S. Brame, Santee, CA, Claimant.
 
        Joel   R.    Alvarey,   United   States    Immigration   and
   Naturalization Service, Washington,  DC, appearing for Department
   of Justice.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant,  Brian S. Brame,  is an Immigration  Inspector for
   the  United   States  Department  of   Justice  Immigration   and
   Naturalization Service.   He seeks to recover  $5,807.55 in local
   travel costs allegedly incurred to perform official business.  On
   September 8,  1997, he submitted  a request for  reimbursement of
   these costs to the agency.
 
        Before  he received the agency's adjudication of his claims,
   claimant, by letter dated September 11, 1997, requested that this
   Board  review the  agency's denial  of his  claims, stating  that
   "[n]one of these  claims has ever b[een] processed. . .  .  I was
   told by [the agency] that no travel claims for reimbursement, for
   local travel, on official business, would ever be processed."
 
        By  letter dated  September  15,  1997,  the  agency  denied
   claimant's claims.   However, given the exclusivity  of grievance
   procedures  as  a means  of  resolving  Mr.  Brame's dispute,  we
   dismiss his claim.  
 
        Mr.  Brame is  a bargaining  unit employee  who, by  his own
   admission,  is bound by a collective bargaining agreement between
   the  agency   and  union  employees  and   collective  bargaining
   employees  (the agreement).   Unless  a  matter such  as this  is
   expressly  excluded  from the  agreement's  grievance procedures,
   those procedures are the only administrative procedures available
   for resolving grievances.   Thus, if  a claim can be  resolved by
   using a
   collective  bargaining  agreement's  grievance  procedures,  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.
   William   A.  Watkins,  GSBCA  13970-TRAV,  97-2  BCA     29,222;
   Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA  13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2  BCA   29,091;
   see also  Kevin A. Dunklebarger,  No. 96-3200 (Fed. Cir.  Dec. 3,
   1997).
 
 
        Article 47 of the agreement reads, in relevant part:
 
        The purpose  of  this Article  is  to provide  a  fair,
        simple and expeditious means  of processing grievances.
        This  negotiated  procedure  shall  be  the   exclusive
        procedure available to  the Union and employees  in the
        unit  for resolving  grievances  which come  within its
        coverage, except as specifically provided . . . below. 
 
        . . .   A grievance means a complaint either  by a unit
        employee concerning his or her conditions of employment
        . . .  .  Unless  excluded below, such a  complaint may
        concern the adverse impact of:
 
        (1)  The  effect of interpretation, or  claim of breach
        of  this master  Agreement, or other  written agreement
        between the parties; or
 
        (2)  Any   claimed  violation,   misinterpretation,  or
        misapplication  of   any  law,   rule,  or   regulation
        affecting conditions of employment.
 
        The agreement  lists  thirteen  exclusions,  none  of  which
   includes claims for  reimbursement of travel expenses.   However,
   reimbursement  for   travel  is  specifically  addressed  in  the
   agreement  in Article  26,  with  applicable  references  to  the
   Federal Travel Regulations.   Thus, a claim for  reimbursement of
   travel expenses is a grievance as defined by Article 47.
 
        If Mr. Brame is still  intent on resolving his  disagreement
   with the agency, he must continue to  do so by pursuing his claim
   within the grievance procedures as set forth in the agreement, as
   such procedures are the "exclusive procedure" available.  This is
   not  a  matter which  we  have the  authority  to consider.   We,
   therefore, dismiss the claim.
 
                                      _____________________
                                      ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                      Board Judge