Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ January 28, 2000 _________________________ GSBCA 14927-RELO In the Matter of JAMES E. BRAY James E. Bray, Japan, Claimant. Martha J. Irons, Naval Supply Systems Command, Mechanicsburg, PA, appearing for Department of the Navy. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, James E. Bray, a civilian employee of the Navy, claims that his household goods were erroneously shipped to Guam in March 1993 in conjunction with his permanent change of station. As a result, the household goods have remained in storage in Guam to this day, and as of February 9, 1999, storage charges amounted to $18,513. The agency contends that the household goods were not erroneously shipped, but were shipped in accordance with claimant's request and his orders. Further, the agency notes that claimant took no action with respect to his household goods in Guam while he was stationed there. Because no persuasive evidence supports claimant's contention that his household goods were erroneously shipped to Guam, the claim is denied. Background On January 22, 1993, claimant submitted a handwritten request for shipment of his personal property to Guam from two locations in California. On January 27, 1993, claimant executed a typewritten version of this request in a DD Form 1299 entitled "Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property." In that form, claimant reiterated that there were two pickups, one in San Diego, California, and another in Spring Valley, California, and that the destination for both was Agana, Guam. Claimant also designated and identified an agent to receive the property in Guam. In the "Remarks" section of this form, "with dependents" was typed in. The form contained the certification of shipment responsibilities/storage conditions under which claimant certified that he had read and understood his shipping responsibilities and storage conditions printed on the reverse side of that form. The reverse side of the form provided, in pertinent part: I understand the Government will not be responsible for goods remaining in storage after the expiration of the authorized period. . . . When the household goods are stored in commercial facilities and the authorized period of storage at Government expense expires, all storage and incidental charges accruing after the last day of the authorized storage shall be at my expense. . . . . The Government shall not be liable for charges incident to storage or services in connection with the household goods (1) not authorized by law or regulation to be at Government expense (2) in excess of weight limitations imposed by law or regulation or (3) after the expiration of the period for which storage at Government expense is authorized. Claimant's travel authorization dated January 21, 1993, provided transportation for his four dependents and authorized shipment of his household goods by Government bill of lading (GBL) to Agana, Guam. The remarks further stated: "TEMP STORAGE OF HHG NTE 90 DAYS. NONTEMP STORAGE MAX 18,000 LBS NTE TOUR OF DUTY IN GUAM." The GBL issued on February 11, 1993, indicated that the destination installation office was in Guam, that the requested pickup date was February 26, 1993, and that the required delivery date was March 19, 1993. The GBL indicated "SIT [storage in transit] not to exceed 90 days is authorized." Claimant's household goods arrived in Guam in March 1993, but he had not yet found a house. Claimant's household goods were placed into storage with a commercial storage facility, the Pacific Island Movers, in Guam effective April 1, 1993, and were authorized to remain in storage for ninety days -- until June 30, 1993. Storage charges were incurred for 6710 pounds (935 cubic feet) of goods at the rate of $280.50 per month. On June 4, 1993, claimant was advised that authorization for the storage of his household goods in Guam would expire on June 29, 1993, and that he could only be allowed additional time by written authorization from his command. The agency contacted claimant again, but he did not acknowledge or return the agency's telephone calls until January 6, 1994. At that time claimant was advised that storage after June 29, 1993, would be at his own expense and that he must take delivery of his household goods. On January 18, 1994, claimant advised the agency that the shipment of his household goods should not have come to Guam. On October 5, 1994, the agency issued a memorandum to claimant advising him that his household goods shipment was in storage in Guam and had been accruing monthly storage charges since June 1993. The memorandum continued: Your inaction to accept your shipment and unwillingness to confront this problem head-on has exacerbated the situation to the point that the storage company is about to auction your goods to recoup accrued storage charges. Almost all [agency] attempts to contact you regarding this problem have been ignored. Your immediate action and liaison with [the agency] is required to avert the auction of your property. This is the first time this issue has come to my attention, and your tour with NAPRA [Naval Air Pacific Repair Facility] started in March 1993! I understand you assert the property should not have been shipped to Guam. This assertion can only be supported by the DD Form 1299 . . . . Please arrange to review this form . . . with me ASAP. . . . In response claimant submitted an unsigned DD Form 1299. On October 6, 1994, the agency issued a reply memorandum to claimant, stating: In response to my request you submitted a rough, unsigned copy of a DD Form 1299. . . . An unsigned Form 1299 will not support your assertion that the supply system has made a mistake in shipping your household goods to Guam. . . . It is evident that you contacted FISC Guam this morning . . . . FISC Guam has a smooth copy of the Form 1299 -- with your signature on it showing Guam as the shipment destination. Your signature on block 15 of the 1299 certifies that you have read and understand your shipping responsibilities and storage conditions printed on the reverse of the form. . . . The form clearly shows that you are liable for storage charges after the authorized period at Government expense expires, which would be on your orders. On October 24, 1994, claimant was authorized to transfer to a new permanent duty station, in San Diego, California. In that authorization, claimant was authorized to transport two dependents different from those named in the 1993 travel authorization to Guam. Claimant was also authorized to ship household goods not to exceed 18,000 pounds from Guam to San Diego by GBL. Although claimant had a new entitlement to ship his household goods back to the United States in October 1994, he elected to leave the goods in storage in Guam. He did, however, ship other goods and the new dependents back to California pursuant to those orders. On October 31, 1994, claimant wrote a letter to the agency's transportation officer in San Diego. Claimant stated that the agency's instructions in 1993 had indicated that household goods would be placed in temporary storage until notification of dependent entry approval and then be shipped. He said that he signed blank 1299 forms -- to be filled in later -- but that the household goods arrived in Guam a month earlier than the scheduled due date with no notification of dependent entry approval. Claimant questioned why his Form 1299 had included the word "with dependents" in block 13 and said that he "needed to know" why his household goods were shipped to Guam without notification of dependent entry approval, unlike those of two other employees whose household goods had also been shipped to Guam. After this October 31, 1994, letter, the record contains no correspondence from Mr. Bray to the storage company or the agency for several years. The goods remained in storage, and the bills continued to accrue. The next entry in the record is a letter dated January 20, 1999, from claimant to the agency complaining that his household goods had been improperly shipped from San Diego to Guam in March 1993. The letter continued: Due to the housing shortage created by the closing of Clark ASB and NAS Cubi Point in the Philippines, an order was issued . . . that there be no travel by dependents nor shipment of household goods prior to the receipt of DEPENDENT ENTRY APPROVAL. I was informed by the Navy legal in San Diego that my household goods could not be sold or disposed of in any way unless I was notified. The Navy legal at . . . Atsugi, Japan requested that I send you a letter to find out exactly where my household goods are and their present status. I am requesting the status of my household goods per your files. On February 9, 1999, the agency in Guam advised claimant that his household goods were presently stored at Pacific Island Movers in Guam and had been there accruing monthly charges since June 1993, with the current amount of charges totaling $18,513. The letter, signed by the director of personal property for the agency in Guam, continued: Upon review of your file I have found that over a six- year period you have ignored all attempts by my predecessor, the traffic manager, San Diego, CA and your previous commander when you were employed on Guam to address this issue. Your unwillingness to take possession of your property is based on your assertion that you requested your property be placed in storage vice shipped to Guam pending a dependent entry approval. The DD 1299 . . . which has your signature and an agent designated to receive property is a contradiction. This document clearly indicates that you requested the property be shipped to Guam. I see no evidence to support your assertion. Therefore, I have informed Pacific Island Movers in writing that as of 29 June 1993 the [termination] date of your 90 days of temporary storage all Government responsibility of your property has ended. You are to contact the company directly to make arrangements for disposition of your goods. By letter that same date the agency's director of personal property advised Pacific Island Movers that all storage charges associated with this shipment are at Mr. Bray's expense and that disposition of this shipment was to be directly with him. Discussion The record contains no probative evidence to support claimant's contention that his household goods were erroneously shipped to Guam. In contrast, the totality of the documentary evidence, including claimant's initial request for shipment of his household goods, the typewritten and signed copies of the DD Form 1299, as well as claimant's travel authorization and the GBL, all uniformly indicate that claimant requested that his household goods be shipped to Guam. Claimant contends that he was advised that his household goods could not have been shipped to Guam until his dependents were authorized to travel to Guam. Thus, claimant believed that because his dependents in California never came to Guam (for reasons which are not stated in the record) his household goods should not have been shipped and the storage charges for the subsequent six years should not be borne by him.[foot #] 1 Claimant's understanding is mistaken. While there were restrictions on dependent entry into Guam in 1993, this had no impact whatsoever on claimant's request to ship his household goods. Rather, the agency was bound to ship the household goods to the location designated by claimant in the signed Form 1299, as well as in claimant's travel orders and the GBL. Jimmie A. Lewellen, B-191143 (Jan. 3, 1979) (household goods were properly shipped to destination on signed Form 1299 and not to other destination claimant allegedly authorized). Although claimant could have elected to have his household goods stored in California for the duration of his tour of duty ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant believes that the words "with dependents" typed in the Remarks section of his DD Form 1299 supports his position that the goods should only have been shipped if his dependents were cleared for entry. However, the agency has explained that such a notation means an employee with dependents is entitled to additional relocation benefits. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- in Guam,[foot #] 2 he elected instead to have his household goods shipped to Guam and placed in temporary storage, not to exceed ninety days. Here, because claimant elected temporary storage at the new duty station, he is responsible for all storage charges accruing after his ninety-day entitlement. Neither the facts nor the law supports reimbursing claimant for any storage charges beyond the ninety days permitted by the agency. Claimant took no action whatsoever to protect his rights once he was advised that the goods were in storage in Guam in 1993, or to mitigate storage costs. Indeed, when claimant returned to California as authorized in October 1994, he made no effort to remove the goods from storage or have them shipped back at Government expense. Apparently, other household goods and new dependents were returned at Government expense. Although JTR C8004 does provide some relief in situations where the Government erroneously ships goods to the wrong destination, this is not such a case.[foot #] 3 Cf. Sattor Dogar, GSBCA14423-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,878 (Government obligated to pay expenses to transport household goods to correct destination under 5 U.S.C. 5725, where agency admittedly shipped household goods to different destination). Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 Section C8002 of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) provides that either temporary storage of household goods for a period not to exceed ninety days or nontemporary storage for the duration of the tour of duty may be elected for certain overseas tours. Nontemporary storage is permitted only if an employee is eligible, and the regulation contemplates storage at the point of origin -- here California. JTR C8002.C.3.b. [foot #] 3 JTR C8004 provides: C8004 MISROUTED SHIPMENTS C8004 MISROUTED SHIPMENTS When HHG or personal baggage within the prescribed weight limitation are forwarded erroneously under a GBL to the wrong destination, or are otherwise unavoidably separated from the employee through no fault of their own, such property may be forwarded to the proper destination at Government expense in accordance with regulations of the Service concerned.