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


                __________________________________

                     DISMISSED: July 30, 1998
                __________________________________


                         GSBCA 14438-TRAV

                                

              IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD F. ANDERSON
                                

Bernard F. Anderson, Jamestown, ND, Claimant.

Rhonda Rhodes, Office of General Counsel, Western Area Power Administration, Golden,
CO, appearing for Department of Energy.

HYATT, Board Judge.

    Claimant, Bernard F. Anderson, an employee of the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), seeks reimbursement for the use of his personally owned vehicle
(POV) during job-related travel.  Mr. Anderson is, however, covered under the terms of a
collective bargaining agreement between WAPA and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW).  The grievance procedures contained within the collective
bargaining agreement are the exclusive means for resolving the issue presented in Mr.
Anderson's claim.  Therefore, the Board lacks authority to review this claim.
     
                           Background

    Between October 24, 1995, and May 15, 1996, Mr. Anderson, whose permanent place
of duty is at WAPA's substation in Jamestown, North Dakota, was assigned temporary
duty at various locations throughout North Dakota.  In fourteen trips, Mr. Anderson
traveled a total of 3,875 miles to and from these duty stations.  For all of these trips, Mr.
Anderson used his POV.

    Mr. Anderson states in his claim, with supporting documentation, that he used his POV
for these trips because of his doctor's request, based on a work-related injury, that he be
limited to light duty and travel in a passenger car.  According to claimant, no Government-
owned vehicles (GOVs) other than a truck and a minivan were available to use, and he
was not able to arrange to ride in any GOVs made available to other employees traveling
to the same destinations to which he traveled.  Mr. Anderson submitted claims for travel
reimbursement, which WAPA paid, but at a lower rate than Mr. Anderson believes he is
entitled to.  On July 28, 1997, Mr. Anderson asked WAPA to review his reimbursement
claims and make corrections to allow for the proper rates of payment.  On November 18,
1997, WAPA responded by refusing to make any adjustments to Mr. Anderson's
reimbursement because, in its view, claimant's use of his POV was not advantageous to
the Government.  Mr. Anderson, on December 16, 1997, requested review of his claim by
the Board.

    WAPA initially filed a report addressing the substantive issues raised by claimant.  Mr.
Anderson filed a reply to WAPA's report.  Subsequently, WAPA submitted a motion to
dismiss this claim on the ground that the Board lacks the authority to hear it.  According to
WAPA, Mr. Anderson is represented by the IBEW and his claim is covered by a collective
bargaining agreement between the IBEW and WAPA.  Article 15 of the collective
bargaining agreement covers employee grievances.  WAPA contends that because Mr.
Anderson is covered by this collective bargaining agreement, which has a grievance
procedure, the Board lacks the authority to hear this claim.
     
                           Discussion

    The collective bargaining agreement applicable to the claimant contains a provision
setting forth a negotiated grievance procedure applicable to any employees who have a
complaint "concerning any matter relating to the employment of the employee which is
within the authority and control of the management."  Unless specifically excluded by
other provisions within this article, an employee's grievance may concern "(1) [t]he
application or interpretation or claim of breach, of this agreement; or (2) [a]ny claimed
violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule, policy, or regulation
affecting conditions of employment."  The matters excluded from this grievance
procedure, listed in Section 15.2, do not include reimbursement claims.  Finally, the
agreement provides that "[t]his procedure is the only procedure available to employees and
parties for the processing and disposition of grievances as described herein."

    The Board has recognized that if a claim concerning travel expenses is subject to
resolution under the terms of a grievance procedure mandated within a collective
bargaining agreement, we lack the authority to settle the claim using our administrative
procedures unless the agreement explicitly and clearly excludes the claim from its
procedures.  William A. Rogers, GSBCA 14357-TRAV (Feb. 12, 1998) (quoting
Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA   29,092); accord Claudia J.
Fleming-Howlett, GSBCA 14236-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,534; Larry D. Morrill, GSBCA
13925-TRAV. 98-1 BCA 29,528; True Carter, GSBCA 14131-TRAV, 98-1 BCA  
29,530; Brian S. Brame, GSBCA 14333-TRAV (Jan. 8, 1998); Henry E. Carroll, Jr.,
GSBCA 14206-TRAV (Dec. 29, 1997); William A. Watkins, GSBCA 13970-TRAV, 97-2
BCA T 29,222;see also Dunklebarger v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 96-3200
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 1997).  This claim is not excluded from the collective bargaining
agreement.  Therefore, the grievance procedures set out in the collective bargaining
agreement constitute the exclusive administrative mechanism available for resolving Mr. 
Anderson's claim for reimbursement.  The Board lacks the authority to consider this claim. 
Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.


                                                                                            CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                                                                            Board Judge