Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                          ____________________
 
                            October 29, 1999
                          ____________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 15072-RELO
 
 
                     In the Matter of DONNY FLORES
 
 
        Donny Flores, LaPlata, MD, Claimant.
 
        Bonnie Britten,  Chief, Travel  Policy  Division, Office  of
   Administration, Department  of Veterans Affairs,  Washington, DC,
   appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs.
 
   NEILL, Board Judge. 
 
        Pursuant  to  31  U.S.C.     3529  (Supp.  III  1997),   the
   Department  of Veterans  Affairs asks  our  opinion regarding  an
   employee's claim for the expenses of shipping his privately owned
   vehicle (POV)  and renting a  vehicle pending the arrival  of his
   POV at his new duty station.   Based upon information provided by
   the  agency,  we conclude  that  the  claim  for the  expense  of
   shipping  the  POV may  be paid  but  the claim  for the  cost of
   renting a vehicle pending delivery of the POV may not.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        In  the fall of  1998, Mr. Donny Flores,  an employee of the
   Department  of Veterans  Affairs, was  transferred from  Oakland,
   California, to San  Juan, Puerto Rico.  He arrived in San Juan on
   September  11, 1998.    Almost  immediately  thereafter,  he  was
   unexpectedly  reassigned to Washington,  D.C.  The  agency deemed
   this to be in the Government's  best interest owing to a need  to
   fill certain  vacant critical  positions at agency  headquarters.
   On September 23, Mr. Flores and his family arrived in Washington.
   He began work there on September 25.  
 
        Upon  learning of  his transfer  to  Washington, Mr.  Flores
   requested  the carrier responsible for transporting his household
   goods and  POV (a  minivan owing to  the size  of his  family) to
   redirect shipment to Washington as soon as possible.  Mr. Flores'
   POV was  delivered to  him in  Washington on  October  23.   From
   September 23  through October 23,  he rented a minivan  since his
   own POV had not yet arrived.
 
        Although the agency recommends  reimbursement to Mr.  Flores
   for  the cost of shipping his POV  from Oakland to Washington, it
   nonetheless remains troubled by certain considerations.   
 
        First, the agency explains  that the determinations required
   under Federal Travel  Regulation (FTR) 302-10.300  through 10.304
   were not made  before redirecting the POV  shipment.  See  41 CFR
   302-10.300 to 304  (1998).  Because the POV was  destined for San
   Juan, the agency questions whether delivery of the vehicle to Mr.
   Flores  in  Washington   was  in  violation  of   the  regulatory
   requirement  under FTR  302-10.304  that  an  employee's  POV  be
   delivered only to the new duty station.  
 
        The particular provisions of concern to the agency appear in
   subpart D of FTR 302-10,  which is entitled: "Transportation of a
   POV Wholly Within the Continental United States (CONUS)."  By its
   terms, this subpart applies only to employees who transfer within
   CONUS.   Under the  definition section of  this part of  the FTR,
   "Continental United States" or "CONUS" is defined as meaning "the
   48 contiguous  States and  the District of  Columbia."   FTR 302-
   1.4(a).  As an employee transferred to San Juan  from Oakland and
   immediately thereafter from San Juan to Washington, Mr. Flores is
   not  covered  by  this  part  of the  regulation.    The  agency,
   therefore, need not be concerned with its application.
 
        The agency  is also concerned, however, with  a provision in
   subpart B  of FTR 302-10  which applies to the  transportation of
   POVs to  "posts of duty"  (i.e. an official duty  station outside
   CONUS, see FTR  302-10.3).  Under FTR  302-10.103, a POV  must be
   shipped to the  actual post of duty  (in this case San  Juan) and
   may  not be  transported to  an alternate  location.   Again, the
   question  is raised  as  to whether  delivery of  the POV  to Mr.
   Flores at Washington is in violation of this requirement.  
 
        We  are told  that, pursuant to  FTR 302-10.140,  the agency
   made the required  determination, before Mr. Flores left Oakland,
   that it was in the interest of the Government for him to have his
   POV  in San  Juan.  Based  upon that  determination, the  POV was
   consigned to  the carrier for  shipment to San  Juan.  Under  FTR
   302-10.201(b),  an employee is eligible for transportation of his
   POV from his post of duty outside CONUS when transferred to a new
   official duty station  within CONUS.  Due to  the abrupt transfer
   of Mr. Flores to Washington almost immediately  after his arrival
   in San Juan, shipment of the POV to San Juan was never completed.
   Since he  would have been entitled  under the FTR  to shipment of
   the POV to  Washington from  San Juan, we  are untroubled by  the
   fact that the POV  ultimately was shipped to him at  his new duty
   station in CONUS without passing first through San Juan. 
 
        The agency also  recommends reimbursement to Mr.  Flores for
   the cost of  renting a minivan in Washington  pending the arrival
   of his POV.  The agency  recognizes that current precedent set by
   the Comptroller  General and  continued by  this Board  prohibits
   reimbursement  for  local  transportation  costs  after  one  has
   reported  to  a  new  official duty  station  (except  for  costs
   incurred  in  the conduct  of official  business).   Andrew Parr,
   GSBCA  14058-RELO, 98-1  BCA    29,426;  Brian P.  Gariffa, GSBCA
   13798-RELO,  97-2 BCA   29,033; Thomas S. Ward, GSBCA 13825-RELO,
   97-1 BCA   28,955; John G. Shirley, B-234861(July 11, 1989).  
 
 
        The agency believes  that in this case an  exception to this
   precedent is warranted  in view of the  extenuating circumstances
   caused by  the Government's   sudden transfer of Mr.  Flores from
   San Juan.  While we appreciate the agency's desire  to offer this
   employee some redress  for the inconvenience  caused him and  his
   family by his  sudden transfer, we are aware of no basis on which
   such an  exception can  be made.   It  is well established  that,
   absent a specific  provision in statute or regulation which might
   permit it under certain circumstances, neither an agency nor this
   Board has  the  authority to  waive the  applicability of  travel
   statutes or regulations  for any individual federal  employee who
   is subject to  them.  Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO, 99-1 BCA
     30,164. 
 
        We, therefore, concur  in the  agency's recommendation  that
   Mr. Flores  be reimbursed  for the cost  of shipping  his POV  to
   Washington.  His claim for payment of costs incurred in renting a
   vehicle pending delivery of his POV, however, should not be paid.
 
 
                                           _____________________
                                           EDWIN B. NEILL
                                           Board Judge