Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                    ________________________________
 
                             March 5 , 1999
                    ________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14703-RELO
 
 
                     In the Matter of JOSEPH NGUYEN
 
 
        Joseph Nguyen, Melbourne, FL, Claimant.
 
        Charles  N.   Stockwell,  Liaison  Office,   Directorate  of
   Resource  Management,  Defense  Finance and  Accounting  Service,
   Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        A  transferred employee  who  was  authorized  to  ship  his
   household goods under  a Government bill of  lading (GBL) instead
   performed a self move.  Because the employee had no documentation
   of  his   actual   expenses,  the   agency  properly   disallowed
   reimbursement.
 
                               Background
 
        Claimant, Joseph Nguyen,  an electronics  engineer with  the
   Department of  the Air Force,  was transferred from  Griffiss Air
   Force Base (AFB), New York, to  Patrick AFB, Florida, on June 24,
   1996.    In  a travel  authorization  issued  on April 12,  1996,
   claimant was authorized to ship his household goods by GBL.  
 
        In April 1997, Mr. Nguyen  asked whether the Air Force would
   pay for  costs he would  incur in moving  the goods himself.   On
   April 30, 1997, the Traffic Management Office at Patrick AFB sent
   claimant via  facsimile copies  of  relevant pages  of the  Joint
   Travel Regulations (JTR) with a cover sheet stating: "You need to
   get a  cost comparison  from Hanscom to  determine which  rate is
   cheaper.  See  paragraph C [of JTR C8001.D.3.c]."   Although this
   regulation provides that a cost comparison shall be  made between
   the  actual expense (GBL)  and commuted rate  methods of shipping
   household goods, claimant in May 1997 shipped his household goods
   himself,  using  his  personal van,  without  obtaining  the cost
   comparison.  Claimant states that on April 29, 1997, he contacted
   personnel  offices  at Hanscom  AFB  and Patrick  AFB  to request
   authorization  to move  his household  goods himself.   He claims
   that on April 30, 1997, Patrick AFB personnel "allowed me to ship
   my own household goods as long as  I could save the Government at
   least $100,"  citing the April 30  facsimile cover  sheet as  the
   signed  statement Patrick  personnel provided  him  on that  day.
   However, claimant does not explain why he did not request Hanscom
   personnel to perform the cost comparison.
 
 
        Claimant contacted a moving contractor to obtain an estimate
   to move  his three bedroom  household from Buffalo,  New York, to
   Melbourne, Florida.   According  to claimant,  a moving  company,
   whose identity is not  in the record,  quoted him an estimate  of
   $3500.  Claimant contends that based upon several trips using his
   own van the moving cost  totaled $3150 (average trip ($630) times
   five  trips equals  $3150).   Claimant submitted  no  receipts or
   other explanation in support of these moving costs, claiming none
   were available.
 
        On May 28, 1998, claimant submitted his travel voucher.  The
   agency denied  reimbursement of the  $3150 in its  entirety based
   upon the following:
 
        1.   No amendment authorizing a commuted rate move.
 
        2.   No tare receipts showing weight of shipments.
 
        3.   Using  own  personal  vehicle  to transport  items
             during  trips  back  and forth  from  new  and old
             [permanent duty station].
 
        4.   AF Form 3535 is a fax transmittal not an amendment
             authorizing Mr. Nguyen  to move his  own household
             goods.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Claimant seeks  to be  reimbursed for  moving his  household
   goods  himself  via the  commuted  rate  method when  his  travel
   authorization  permitted  him  reimbursement for  using  the  GBL
   method of  shipment.   Claimant never  received authorization  to
   ship his household goods via the commuted rate.  Rather, claimant
   was  expressly advised to call  the appropriate Air Force office,
   in this case Hanscom AFB, to initiate the cost comparison process
   to determine whether  the GBL method or the  commuted rate method
   would  be less  expensive.   Claimant did  not follow  this clear
   directive.   Instead,  he  contacted a  local  mover in  Buffalo,
   apparently obtained a verbal quote  from that moving company of a
   cost  of $3500 for commercially transporting his household goods,
   never asked  Hanscom  personnel  to  do a  cost  comparison,  and
   proceeded to do a self  move without weighing his household goods
   or  retaining any  receipts for  expenses  associated with  these
   moves.   Claimant has  not explained how  he calculated  the $630
   average per-trip cost.
 
        Under  the   circumstances,  claimant  is  not  entitled  to
   reimbursement at the commuted rate, but instead would be  limited
   to  actual expenses  if supported  by  adequate documentation  or
   receipts.  JTR C8001.D.3.c provides:
 
        A  cost  comparison  will be  made  between  the actual
        expense  (GBL) and the computed rate method of shipping
        [household goods].   In  the event  the estimated  cost
        under  one  method  exceeds  the  estimated cost  under
        another method by  more than $100, the  more economical
        method  will  be used.    An employee's  request  for a
        particular  method will  be the  determining factor  in
        cases  where the costs  are within $100  of each other.
        When it has been determined that shipment by GBL is the
        most  economical  and  the  employee  chooses  to  make
        his/her own arrangements for shipment, the employee may
        be  reimbursed  the  actual expenses  incurred  not  to
        exceed what it would  have cost the Government had  the
        shipment been made by GBL.
 
        As  this Board has held in  interpreting that regulation, if
   shipment by  GBL is more  economical and the employee  chooses to
   make his own  arrangement for shipping  his household goods,  the
   agency will reimburse the employee for his actual expenses not to
   exceed what  it would  have cost  if the  goods had  been shipped
   using the GBL  method.  Robert W. Miller,  GSBCA 13919-RELO, 97-2
   BCA    29,051.  In  Miller the Board  held that claimant  was not
   entitled to be  reimbursed at the commuted rate  where the agency
   had determined that  shipment by GBL was more  economical and the
   employee  chose to  make  his own  arrangements for  shipping his
   household  goods;  the  Board  limited  reimbursement  to  actual
   expenses incurred.   Similarly, in  Terry Beck, GSBCA 14590-RELO,
   98-2    BCA    29,969,  the Board  denied  reimbursement  at  the
   commuted rate where an employee  did a self move even  though his
   travel  authorization provided for movement under the GBL method.
   In Beck the Board limited  claimant's recovery to the only actual
   cost incurred for which he had a receipt, i.e., a truck rental in
   the amount of $557.75.  
 
        In   George M.  Karmis,   B-250002   (Aug. 26,  1993),   the
   Comptroller  General disallowed any reimbursement for a self move
   where  claimant  did  not obtain  weight  certificates  or proper
   receipts supporting actual expenses of his move.  GAO reasoned:
 
        Mr.  Karmis stated  that he  arranged with a  friend to
        move  his  goods for  a  $1,950  fee which  Mr.  Karmis
        indicates   he  paid  the   friend  in  cash.     While
        reimbursement of  such  charges  is  not  categorically
        barred . . . such an arrangement where the mover is not
        a  commercial mover  raises  obvious  questions  as  to
        whether an actual arms length transaction occurred. . .
        .  In such a case it is appropriate to require complete
        documentation before payment may be authorized.
   The Comptroller  General found the documentation insufficient and
   denied the claim  in its entirety.   See also,  JTR C8009 ( If  a
   bill  of lading  isn t  used,  the receipt  shall  show point  of
   origin,   destination,  and  weight. ).    Here,  as  in  Karmis,
   claimant's alleged costs of $3150 are not supported by sufficient
   documentation, since  he did not  provide any receipts  or weight
   certificates.    Indeed,  claimant has  not  articulated  how his
   claimed average  per-trip cost of  $630 was derived.   Based upon
   claimant's failure to obtain a cost comparison and to document or
   substantiate his  alleged actual expenses, the  agency reasonably
   denied reimbursement.
 
 
                                Decision
 
        The claim is denied.
   ________________________________
 
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge