Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ February 29, 2000 ________________________________ GSBCA 15056-RELO In the Matter of ARLON J. ROWE Arlon J. Rowe, Tooele, UT, Claimant. T. R. Love, Deputy Director for Finance, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Rock Island, IL, appearing for Department of the Army. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, Arlon J. Rowe, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army, seeks reimbursement for commercially transporting his privately owned vehicle (POV) from a port of entry at Long Beach, California, to Los Angeles International Airport in conjunction with his permanent change of station (PCS) from Hawaii to Tooele, Utah. The agency denied reimbursement of this expense, relying on paragraph C11004-D of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), but did reimburse him for shipping the vehicle, for mileage from the port to the airport, for mileage from the airport to Tooele, Utah, and for parking fees at the airport. We agree that claimant is not entitled to additional reimbursement. Background Claimant, a program analyst with the Army, was transferred from Fort Shafter, Hawaii, to Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah, with a reporting date of May 27, 1999. Claimant was authorized to have his POV shipped to California. Claimant was orally advised by personnel at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Rock Island, Illinois, that he could obtain a taxi from the airport to the port at Government expense, but that he would not be reimbursed for a commercial entity to deliver the vehicle from the port to the airport. However, DFAS in Hawaii orally advised him that the commercial delivery from the port to the airport would be reimbursed. Claimant determined that the cost of taking a taxi to the port was roughly the same as the cost of a commercial entity delivering the POV to the airport -- the cost of a taxi between the port and the airport was $80 and the cost of delivering a vehicle to the airport was $90. Claimant departed Honolulu at 10:10 p.m. on May 23 and arrived in Los Angeles at 6:18 a.m. on Monday, May 24. He had his POV shipped from the port to the airport for $90. The agency reimbursed claimant $4.08 for mileage from the port to the airport and $21 in parking fees at the airport. Since claimant sought reimbursement in the amount of $90 for the cost of the commercial transport of the vehicle, the agency denied reimbursement for the difference of $64.92. The agency also reimbursed claimant in the amount of $109.95 for mileage for himself and one dependent between the airport in Los Angeles, California, and his destination, Tooele, Utah. Discussion In September 1996, Congress enacted legislation authorizing agencies to reimburse employees for the cost of transporting a POV to a new official station under certain conditions, with an effective date of March 1997. 5 U.S.C. 5727(c) (Supp. III 1997); see James H. Shaw, GSBCA 14718-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,359, reconsideration denied (Feb. 28, 2000); Gary J. Rossio, GSBCA 14570-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,844. On March 23, 1997, implementing regulations were published in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), part 302-10. In general, the FTR permits agencies to authorize transportation of a POV to the new official station when an agency determines that it is advantageous and cost-effective to the Government. 41 CFR 302-10.4 (1997). The FTR contemplates that each agency will establish policies governing the circumstances under which it will allow or authorize reimbursement of the costs of transporting a POV to the new duty station. 41 CFR 302-10.502. FTR 302-10.205 provides that "the authorized destination of a POV transported under the regulation from a post of duty is the official duty station within the United States." Thus, claimant is entitled to reimbursement for allowable costs of transporting his vehicle to the new duty station from the port of debarkation. However, the JTR, which apply to civilian employees of the Department of Defense, make it clear that the cost of commercial transportation of the vehicle is not allowed and that reimbursement is limited to mileage. The pertinent regulation, JTR C11004-D, provides: D. Transportation From Ports. An employee isn't entitled to have the Government arrange transportation for the POV from a vehicle port facility to the new OCONUS [outside the continental United States[foot #] 1] PDS [permanent duty station], or (upon return by PCS or for separation) to the actual residence at time of appointment or assignment to an OCONUS PDS. When an employee, or the employee's designated representative, makes a separate trip to a port to reclaim the POV, per diem isn't allowable but the one-way transportation cost actually incurred for travel to the port and one-way return mileage at the applicable rate are authorized. The total of the one-way transportation costs and one-way mileage paid by the Government may not exceed the cost of transporting the POV from the port involved to the employee's new OCONUS PDS, or (upon return by PCS or for separation) to the actual residence at time of appointment or assignment to an OCONUS PDS. In the event an employee pays another individual to drive the POV, or arranges to have the POV transported commercially, from the vehicle port facility, reimbursement for the actual cost of having the POV driven or transported is on a mileage basis not to exceed an amount determined by multiplying the appropriate rate by the distance between the port facility and the employee's new OCONUS PDS, or (upon return by PCS or for separation) the actual residence at the time of appointment or assignment to an OCONUS PDS, whichever is applicable (B-197255, February 10, 1981). JTR C11004-D (Aug. 17, 1998) (emphasis added). Thus, the JTR provision expressly states that when an employee makes a separate trip to a port to reclaim the POV, the one-way transportation costs actually incurred for travel to the port and the one-way return mileage at the applicable rate are authorized, but when the employee has the POV transported commercially, reimbursement shall be made on a mileage basis. The agency has properly construed this regulation to deny claimant the cost of a commercial delivery service to have the vehicle delivered to the airport. In the decision which the JTR provision references as further explanation, Anthony G. Marquart, B-197255 (Feb. 10, 1981), the General Accounting Office held, "A Defense Department employee whose vehicle is transported commercially between the port of debarkation and his duty station is entitled to be reimbursed for the commercial shipping charges only to the extent that they do not exceed the applicable mileage allowance." Where as here a regulation expressly addresses the precise situation and denies reimbursement, the agency and this Board ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Hawaii is considered to be outside the continental United States. JTR app. A. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- cannot authorize payment. Claimant received a mileage allowance for transporting his vehicle from the port to the airport and from the airport to his new duty station. No additional payment for commercially transporting the vehicle is permitted. Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge