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.