Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ July 5, 2000 _________________ GSBCA 15284-RELO In the Matter of HERBERT J. RATZBURG Herbert J. Ratzburg, N. Las Vegas, NV, Claimant. Charles N. Stockwell, Travel Branch, Directorate of Travel and Vendor Pay, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, Mr. Herbert Ratzburg, is a civilian employee of the United States Air Force. He is seeking payment of interest on late payments of claims he submitted in 1995 for Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expenses (TQSE) and house hunting expenses. The expenses in question were incurred in conjunction with the claimant's permanent change of station from Ellsworth Air Force Base (AFB) in South Dakota to Nellis AFB in Nevada. The claim for TQSE has been the subject of a running controversy between Mr. Ratzburg and various Air Force officials for several years. The principal problem appears to have been the calculation of the claimant's relocation income tax allowance. As for the claim for house hunting expenses, this simply appears to have been overlooked until 1999 when claimant, still disputing the calculation of the TQSE payment, also brought this matter to the agency's attention. We see no need here to describe in detail the tortuous path the processing of these claims has followed over the years. The claims obviously have been mishandled by the agency to the unending frustration of the claimant. The record contains various statements from Air Force officials recognizing this fact. Their refusal to pay Mr. Ratzburg's claim for interest, therefore, is not based on their belief that the agency's actions were justified but rather on the ground that there simply is not authority under the Department of Defense's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) to make such a payment. Mr. Ratzburg's claim for interest, therefore, is the sole issue before us. This is not the first time that we have considered this issue. In the past, the General Accounting Office (GAO), our predecessor in settling travel and relocation claims, and this Board have been asked to include interest in the settlement of claims. More often than not, the claimants have made this request without reference to any specific authority which would permit us to make such an award. Our response has consistently been that we knew of no authority which would permit us to award interest on delayed reimbursement of travel or relocation expenses. Kenneth W. Trotman, GSBCA 15250-RELO (May 25, 2000); John V. Duncan, GSBCA 15230-RELO (May 16, 2000); Sarah A. Issa, GSBCA 14140-TRAV-R, 98-2 BCA 29,761; Jerry Jolly, GSBCA 14158-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,518 (1997); Michael A. Dilligan, GSBCA 13644-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,045. Other claimants have unsuccessfully attempted to argue that interest is justified on the basis of a specific statutory provision. In David W. Eubank, B-219526 (May 25, 1988), the claimant asserted that award of interest was justified on the basis of the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. 3901-3906 (Supp. III 1985). The GAO rejected this theory. More recently, we rejected a claimant's contention that interest could be awarded based upon the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596 (1994). Synita Revels, GSBCA 14935-RELO, 00-1 BCA 30,716 (1999), reconsideration denied, 00-1 BCA 30,896. The situation has of course changed somewhat with passage of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998. In this Act, Congress has now specifically provided for the payment of a late fee if an agency fails to reimburse an employee for a travel claim within thirty days of the submission of a proper voucher. Pub. L. No. 105-264, 2(e), 112 Stat. 2350, 2352 (1998). Unfortunately, this welcome change is of no use to claimant here since he completed his travel long before passage of the Act. It is well established that retroactivity is not favored in the law. Congressional enactments and administrative rules are not to be construed as having a retroactive effect unless their language requires this result. Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988). We find nothing in the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 which suggests that the provision regarding late payment fees can be given retroactive application. Indeed, the agency report filed with this case advises us that the Department of Defense, in implementing this provisionof the Act, plans on making it applicable only for travel performed after December 31, 1999.[foot #] 1 The agency's denial of the claim, therefore, must be affirmed. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Of course, if claimant's travel had been completed after passage of the Act, application of this provision to payment of Mr. Ratzburg's claims would still be open to question to the extent that they involve payment of relocation benefits which are not identical to travel expenses. See Synita ___ ______ Revels, 00-1 BCA 30,716 at 151,711 n.7. We make no ______ determination regarding that issue here. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- ________________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge