Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                    ________________________________
 
                           February 12, 1999
                    ________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14656-TRAV
 
 
                    In the Matter of KATHERINE KRUSE
 
 
        Katherine Kruse, Anaheim, CA, Claimant.
 
        Randall Christopherson and Mary Sprague, Office of Financial
   Operations, Small Business  Administration, Denver, CO, appearing
   for Small Business Administration.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        In this case the agency seeks our opinion on whether  it may
   reimburse employees for repairing privately  owned vehicles (POV)
   while  on  official travel.   Because  this Board's  authority is
   limited, we only address whether the claims would be reimbursable
   under  statutory  and  regulatory  provisions  involving  federal
   civilian  employees'  official  travel  and  transportation.   31
   U.S.C.       3529(b)(2)(B),  3702(a)(3)  (Supp.  II  1996).    In
   particular, we do not address  the potential legal redress  these
   employees might have for personal property damage under any other
   statutory or regulatory scheme, including the Federal Tort Claims
   Act,  28  U.S.C.     2671-2680,  or  the Military  Personnel  and
   Civilian Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.    240-243.
 
        In  the   two  situations   presented,  the   statutory  and
   regulatory  provisions  governing  official  travel  for  federal
   civilian  employees do not authorize reimbursement for the repair
   of a federal employee's POV while used on official duty.
 
                               Background
 
        On  March 17, 1998, Ms.  Katherine Kruse, a  loan specialist
   with the Small  Business Administration (SBA), was  authorized to
   utilize  her POV  during a site  visit.   While Ms. Kruse  was en
   route to the  site, a  vehicle traveling  in the left  lane on  a
   freeway hit  some debris,  and an object  which appeared to  be a
   piece of metal or pipe hit  the driver's side of Ms. Kruse's van.
   As a result,  there was a  gash in the  bumper and the  left-turn
   signal was  scratched and cracked.   Repairs are estimated  to be
   $277.  In  a separate incident, an  SBA employee had a  flat tire
   while using a POV  to return home from the local  airport after a
   temporary duty assignment.
 
 
        The SBA  has asked our  opinion on whether repairs  to these
   POVs would be reimbursable. 
 
                               Discussion
 
        Although the SBA  has asked us for a  broad clarification of
   Federal Travel Regulation  (FTR) policy, we respond  to questions
   posed  by agencies  only if  the  questions refer  to a  specific
   payment or voucher.  Rule 502(a)(2) (48 CFR 6105.2(a)(2) (1997)).
   We, thus, do not in this decision give an all-encompassing answer
   on  whether in  every circumstance  an employee  using a  POV for
   official business may be reimbursed for repairs  to that vehicle.
   Neither  the  statutory  provisions  governing  federal  civilian
   employees'  official travel,  5 U.S.C.A.     5701  et seq.  (West
   Supp. 1998),  nor the  applicable provisions  in the  FTR, 41 CFR
   301-10.300-310 (1998),  authorize reimbursement  for the  vehicle
   repairs at  issue.    Indeed,  the FTR  expressly  provides  that
   repairs to a  POV used on official business  are not allowable as
   miscellaneous  expenses.      It  lists   "charges  for   repair,
   depreciation, replacements,  grease, oil, antifreeze,  towage and
   similar  speculative   expenses"  as   nonreimbursable  expenses.
   41 CFR 301-10.304.  
 
        As    this   Board    recognized   in    Nancy K.   Rodgick,
   GSBCA 14193-RELO, 97-2 BCA   29,302, reimbursement for repairs to
   an   employee's  POV  is  not  permissible  under  the  statutory
   entitlement  to federal employees  on official travel,  because a
   mileage allowance is paid instead of the actual expenses incurred
   when  an employee  uses  a  POV.   See  also, Glenn S.  Podonsky,
   GSBCA 14207-TRAV, 97-2 BCA   29,229.  Similarly, when it reviewed
   federal  travel  and relocation  claims,  the  General Accounting
   Office (GAO) denied reimbursement  of the cost of repairing  worn
   or  damaged parts of  a POV as a  miscellaneous expense under the
   FTR.  E.g.,  Nick D. Swanstrom, B-227387 (Dec. 11,  1987); Thomas
   A. Hughes,  B-204100 (Aug. 16, 1982)  (GAO distinguishes  vehicle
   registration  and licensing expenses at new duty station from the
   cost of maintenance and repair; the latter are not reimbursable);
   accord 60 Comp.  Gen. 633 (1981) (employee authorized  to use POV
   on  official  business  is  reimbursed on  a  mileage  basis, and
   reimbursement for  damage to the  vehicle under 5 U.S.C.     5704
   and 5707 is precluded).
 
        While the two SBA employees may be entitled to recover under
   other statutory schemes, this Board does not have jurisdiction to
   make  such determinations.  As the Board recognized in Charles A.
   Miller,  GSBCA 13679-RELO,  et al.,  97-1  BCA     28,865,  which
   included a claim for damage to property transported by a carrier:
 
        [This]  claim  .  .  .  is  not  within  our  delegated
        authority,  which  is  to   settle  claims  by  federal
 
        civilian employees for  relocation expenses incident to
        transfers  of  official duty  station. .  . .   Section
        3702(a)  of  Title  31  [of  the  United  States  Code]
        provides . .  . the authority to settle  claims "except
        as provided in  . .  . another  law." . .  . Claims  by
        employees  for loss or  damage incident to  service are
        covered  by another law  -- the Military  Personnel and
        Civilian  Employees'  Claims  Act,  31  U.S.C.     3721
        (1994).  That Act (1) vests claims settlement authority
        with  agency heads, 31  U.S.C.   3721(b);  (2) provides
        that  the settlement is final and conclusive, 31 U.S.C.
          3721(k);  and (3) is  considered to be  the exclusive
        remedy for federal  employees, who may not file  a suit
        under the  Federal Tort  Claims Act.   See Talstrom  v.
        United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 106, 107 (1983).    Further, a
        claim for  loss or damage is a claim  for a tort, not a
        claim for an expense incident to a transfer of official
        duty station.
 
   97-1  BCA  at  143,997-98;  accord  Gretchen F.  Ridgeway,  GSBCA
   14074-RELO,   97-1   BCA      28,865;  George J.   Krakie,  GSBCA
   14141-RELO, 97-2 BCA    29,158 (claim for damage  to a boat which
   was  shipped  during  a  transfer  was  not  within  the  Board's
   jurisdiction, but claims by employees for loss or damage incident
   to  service were covered  by the Military  Personnel and Civilian
   Employees'  Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.    3721 (1994));  Ronnie Davis,
   B-204324 (Apr. 27,  1982) (GAO  had no  jurisdiction over  claims
   under Military Personnel  and Civilian Employees' Claims  Act for
   reimbursement of expenses  incurred as  a result  of an  accident
   which occurred when a federal  civilian employee was driving to a
   temporary duty site in his privately owned automobile).
 
        The SBA has asked the  Board whether a federal regulation, 5
   CFR  180.104 (1998), could  authorize the reimbursement  in these
   cases.  That  regulation, in pertinent  part, provides: "A  claim
   may be allowed only if the  damage or loss were not caused  fully
   or partially by the negligent or wrongful act of the claimant and
   the possession of  the property damaged or lost  and the quantity
   possessed  is  determined  to have  been  reasonable,  useful, or
   proper  under the  circumstances."   This  regulation was  issued
   pursuant to the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims
   Act of 1964, 31  U.S.C.    240-243, and authorizes the  Office of
   Personnel and Management (OPM) to  settle and pay certain  claims
   of  officers  and  employees of  OPM  for damage  to  or  loss of
   personal  property.   The  Board  lacks  authority  to  render  a
   decision on its applicability.
 
                                Decision
 
        The statutes  and regulations  governing official travel  of
   federal civilian  employees  do not  authorize  reimbursement  of
   repairs to a POV used  on official business, in the circumstances
   outlined above.
   ________________________________
 
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge