Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                   
 
                           September 8, 1999
                                                   
 
 
                            GSBCA 15061-RELO
 
 
                  In the Matter of TIMOTHY E. ALDRICH
 
 
        Timothy E. Aldrich, Columbia, SC, Claimant.
 
        Cynthia  S.  Whitt,  Chief,  Accounting  Branch,   Financial
   Management Office,  Centers for  Disease Control and  Prevention,
   Public Health Service,  Atlanta, GA, appearing for  Department of
   Health and Human Services.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        Section  5723 of  title 5,  United  States Code,  authorizes
   agencies to pay various expenses a new appointee incurs in moving
   from the place  he resides when selected for his  position to his
   first duty  station.  The  expenses covered are those  of travel;
   transportation of  the employee's immediate  family and household
   goods;  and transporting  a privately  owned vehicle.   5  U.S.C.
     5723(a) (Supp. II 1996); see also 41 CFR 302-1.10(e) (1998).  A
   claim by Dr. Timothy  E. Aldrich, a new  employee of the  Centers
   for Disease Control  and Prevention (CDC), tests  the application
   of this statute.
 
        In  July 1998,  Dr. Aldrich,  then a  resident of  Utah, was
   offered a position with the CDC  in South Carolina.  He  accepted
   the job.  Before reporting for  duty in August, Dr. Aldrich moved
   his household goods to South Carolina in  two separate trips.  He
   first  drove his own vehicle east,  loaded with goods.  Later, he
   returned to Utah,  rented a truck, and drove  the truck, with his
   car  in tow,  to South  Carolina.   The  agency and  the employee
   agreed that  the Government would  cover the actual  expenses Dr.
   Aldrich incurred in transporting  his belongings, up to  the cost
   that  would have been  incurred if the goods  had been shipped by
   Government    bill   of    lading.[foot #] 1       The   employee
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 The  agency did  not  issue  travel orders  until
   September 1998 -- after Dr. Aldrich was  already at work in South
                                                      (continued...)
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   submitted a voucher claiming the costs of both trips -- an amount
   per mile,  an amount per  day for meals and  incidental expenses,
   and rental  of  the truck.   (He  did not  seek  any amounts  for
   lodging.)  Dr. Aldrich claimed $1567.80 in all.
 
 
        The  CDC asserts  that the  cost of  shipping Dr.  Aldrich's
   goods  by  Government  bill  of  lading  would have  been  $2125.
   Although the cost of the two trips  is less than this amount, the
   agency reimbursed  the employee for  only the cost of  his second
   trip, in the rented truck -- $808.80.
 
        The  CDC grounds  its  determination on  a  decision of  the
   Comptroller  General, who  until mid-1996 settled  claims against
   the United States involving expenses incurred by federal civilian
   employees  for  relocation  expenses  incident  to  transfers  of
   official duty  station.   In  that  case, Howard  Robinson,  Jr.,
   B-271337  (July 1,  1996), the Comptroller  General held  that an
   employee who  has been reimbursed  for the costs of  traveling in
   his own vehicle from one duty station to another may not  be paid
   for those costs  twice on  the ground  that the car  was used  to
   transport household goods as well as the employee himself.
 
        Dr.   Aldrich's  situation  is   very  different   from  Mr.
   Robinson's.  The doctor  is asking to be reimbursed only once for
   each  expense  he  incurred,  not twice,  as  the  other employee
   requested.   We have  already held  that when  an agency  makes a
   commitment  to reimburse  a relocating  employee  for the  actual
   costs incurred in  transporting his goods, it must  pay for those
   costs regardless of the number of trips involved, as long as each
   trip was  necessary for  the transport  of the  goods.   Jerry U.
   Shimoda, GSBCA 14264-RELO,  99-1 BCA   30,170 (payment  for costs
   of eight trips); see also Ray R. Schuler, B-255997 (June 3, 1994)
   (payment for costs of  three trips).   The fact that Dr.  Aldrich
   moved his  goods from Utah to South Carolina in two stages should
   have no impact on reimbursement, since both trips were  necessary
   for the transport of the goods.
 
        In commenting  to the Board on the  merits of the claim, the
   CDC has raised a new issue.  It has properly observed (though for
   the  wrong reason) that in one regard, its previous determination
   was excessively  generous.   The matter  is the costs  associated
   with the rented truck.   Dr. Aldrich seeks reimbursement not only
   for  the rental  itself,  but also  for the  cost of  driving the
   truck.   The  amount  claimed  for the  latter  element is  $342,
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 (...continued)
   Carolina.  These orders authorize shipment of household  goods by
   the commuted rate system.  The agency states, however --  and Dr.
   Aldrich  does   not  challenge   this  statement   --  that   the
   authorization is in error and should have reflected the agreement
   stated above.  The commuted rate system and actual expense method
   for transporting  household goods  are discussed  in the  Federal
   Travel Regulation at 41 CFR 302-8.3.
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   calculated as fifteen cents per  mile for the 2280 miles traveled
   from Utah  to South Carolina.   The agency believes  that another
   decision  of the  Comptroller General,  Mark  A. Smith,  B-228813
   (Sept. 14, 1988),  makes payment of this amount  improper.  Smith
   holds  that an  employee who  has been  reimbursed for  the costs
   associated with driving  a rented truck from one  duty station to
   another may not  also be paid for  the mileage traveled by  a car
   which is being towed  by the truck.  This holding  does not apply
   to Dr.  Aldrich's claim, for  the doctor seeks  reimbursement for
   only costs associated with the truck, not for any amount relating
   to the car.  
 
 
        The difficulty we see in  the claim for the costs associated
   with  the  rented truck  is  that  the  employee is  entitled  to
   reimbursement  for actual expenses incurred, and while the rental
   cost is such  an expense, the  $342 claimed for  mileage is  not.
   The mileage rates prescribed by the Federal Travel Regulation are
   for travel in privately owned  vehicles, not for travel in rented
   trucks.  41 CFR 302-2.3.  Mileage rates include charges for items
   such as  repairs, depreciation,  replacements,  grease, oil,  and
   antifreeze  -- costs which are presumably  included in the rental
   fee for  a truck.   See id.  301-10.304.   Dr. Aldrich  should be
   reimbursed for  that fee.  He  should also be  reimbursed not for
   driving the truck  at the regulation's mileage  rate, but rather,
   at the actual  cost he incurred in purchasing  gasoline and other
   items additional to  the rental fee to make  the vehicle function
   as it moved from Utah to  South Carolina.  Receipts are the  best
   proof of expenses actually incurred.  Because Dr. Aldrich may not
   have  kept receipts,  however, and  the cost  of gasoline  may be
   estimated  with reasonable  accuracy,  to  the  extent  that  the
   employee  does not have receipts, the agency should reimburse him
   for the costs he incurred  as calculated through estimates.  (For
   example, if a gallon of gas  cost about one dollar and the  truck
   traveled  ten miles per  gallon, reimbursement  of ten  cents per
   mile would be appropriate.)
 
        The claim is  granted, except to the extent  that the amount
   sought for driving  the truck may be adjusted  in accordance with
   the instructions given in the preceding paragraph.
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge