Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
                           _________________
 
                           November 15, 2000
                           _________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 15324-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of GARY L. WHITED
 
 
        Gary L. Whited, Columbiana, OH, Claimant.
 
        Bonnie Britten,  Chief, Travel  Policy  Division, Office  of
   Administration, Department  of Veterans Affairs,  Washington, DC,
   appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs.
 
   GOODMAN, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant, Gary  L. Whited, is an employee  of the Department
   of Veterans Affairs (VA).  In April 1999, claimant was reassigned
   from the Youngstown VA Outpatient  Clinic in Youngstown, Ohio, to
   the Brecksville  VA Medical  Center in Brecksville,  Ohio.   As a
   result  of this reassignment,  claimant s daily commute  from his
   residence in Columbiana, Ohio, to his duty station increased.  He
   requested that  his agency  issue travel  orders for a  permanent
   change of  station (PCS).   The agency  refused his  request, and
   claimant requested review by this Board of  the agency s decision
   not to issue travel orders for a PCS.
 
                               Background
 
        The  Board docketed claimant s request for review and issued
   a decision on  November 23, 1999.   Gary L. Whited,  GSBCA 15106-
   RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,709.  The  Board found that claimant had been
   ordered to perform a PCS, despite his lack of travel orders.  The
   Board ruled:
 
        The  employee has accomplished a PCS.  Accordingly, the
        agency should issue travel orders with entitlements  to
        costs incident to a PCS in  accordance with statute and
        regulation.
 
   00-1 BCA at 151,700.
    
        On  February 28, 2000,  the agency  issued travel  orders to
   claimant, authorizing reimbursement  of travel expenses  incident
   to his  PCS to the  new duty station  in Brecksville, Ohio.   The
   agency  authorized  reimbursement  of  various  costs  which  are
   incident to a  permanent change of  station - temporary  quarters
   subsistence expenses,  real estate expenses incident  to purchase
   of  a  residence,  miscellaneous  moving  expenses,  storage   of
   household goods, relocation income  tax allowance, a househunting
   trip, and relocation services.  
 
 
        On May 15,  2000, claimant filed the instant  case with this
   Board.  In his request for review, he states that he is seeking:
 
        [M]oving  expenses  as  outlined  in  the  FTR,  travel
        expenses for the difference  in commuting distances for
        the period travel orders were delayed, and compensation
        for the additional  commuting time incurred during  the
        same period.   On November 23, 1999,  [the Board] ruled
        in my favor.  [The] decision stated:   The employee has
        accomplished  a PCS.    Accordingly  the agency  should
        issue travel orders with entitlements to costs incident
        to   a  PCS  move   in  accordance  with   statute  and
        regulation.  . . . 
 
        [After travel orders  were issued,] I then  submitted a
        request for the additional travel expenses incurred and
        additional commuting  time during  the delay  period as
        requested in the original appeal  in August 1999. . . .
        [T]his  request  has  been   denied.    [The  agency s]
        response states  You were merely transporting  yourself
        to your  assigned duty station.    Again, they  fail to
        see the issue.   My  request is  for additional  travel
        expenses,  not normal to and from work commuting costs.
        Likewise,   the  requested   time  is   for  additional
        commuting time over  and above the routine drive to the
        workplace.   These excessive costs and time incurred by
        myself  were not at  my asking, but  because the agency
        delayed appropriate travel  orders for over ten  months
        due  to  their  failure   to  interpret  basic   travel
        regulations.
 
        Thus,  while the  agency  issued travel  orders  authorizing
   reimbursement  of  moving  expenses,  claimant  seeks  additional
   expenses -  overtime and  mileage charges  incurred prior to  the
   issuance of the travel orders.  
 
        The agency responded  by letter dated  June 19, 2000,  which
   read in relevant part:
 
        Federal employees are required  to transport themselves
        to and from work.
 
        Overtime  may  not   be  paid  unless  work   is  being
        performed.  Transporting yourself from home to work and
        return does  not constitute  hours of  work under  Fair
        Labor Standards Act.
 
        While it is  true that approval of  Mr. Whited s travel
        authority for permanent change of station  was delayed,
        the fact remains that he  continues to live at the same
        residence.   Mr.  Whited continues  to  drive the  same
        distance to and from work by his own choice.  
 
                               Discussion
 
        Claimant seeks two elements of  cost in this case - overtime
   and travel expenses.  With regard to the claim  for overtime, the
   request has been filed at the wrong forum.  The Board's authority
   to  review claims  filed  by federal  civilian employees  (and to
   render advance decisions at the request of agencies in connection
   with such claims)  is limited to claims for  expenses incurred in
   connection  with official travel or relocation.  Claims involving
   federal civilian employees' compensation (including overtime) and
   leave are  reviewed by  the Director of  the Office  of Personnel
   Management (OPM).    31 U.S.C.   3702 (Supp. IV 1998); Darrell R.
   Ratliff, GSBCA 14403-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   29,760; William H. Goggins,
   GSBCA 14469-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   29,842.
 
        As  to the claim for travel expenses, claimant seeks charges
   for mileage and  tolls.  Our prior decision  determined that even
   though  the  agency had  not  issued  travel  orders for  a  PCS,
   claimant had  indeed  accomplished a  PCS, as  his official  duty
   station had changed.  Claimant was therefore in a situation where
   he was required to commute from his residence near his prior duty
   station to his new duty  station.  Implicit in claimant s request
   for mileage and tolls was a claim that he would have moved closer
   to his new duty station to  avoid same if he had been  authorized
   to do so.
 
        What claimant seeks  in this claim is not  costs incident to
   his PCS  move, but travel costs from his  old duty station to the
   vicinity of his  new duty station before his  PCS was authorized.
   The agency s position is  that federal employees are required  to
   transport  themselves to  and  from work  at  their own  expense.
   Additionally, since claimant  has not moved as of  this date, the
   agency believes that  he continues to drive the  same distance to
   and from work at his own choice.
 
        When claimant filed  this case, the record  did not indicate
   whether  claimant  had  actually moved  his  residence  after the
   agency issued  travel  orders authorizing  reimbursement for  his
   PCS.   As  more than  eight months  had  passed since  the agency
   issued travel orders to claimant authorizing him reimbursement of
   expenses  incident to  his PCS  move,  the Board  inquired as  to
   whether claimant had actually moved.  Claimant responded  that he
   has not yet moved, even though he states he had and  continues to
   have an intent  to move.  One  of the reasons stated  by claimant
   for not having moved is the continuing possibility of accepting a
   buy-out, if one becomes available.  However, claimant states this
   will not  be an  option for  him if  he has  moved at  Government
   expense within two years of the buy-out.
 
        While  claimant continues to assess his options, his current
   commute  from  his  residence  to  his new  duty  station  is  no
   different than  the commute  from his same  residence to  his new
   duty station for the period before he was issued PCS orders.  For
   more  than  eight months,  claimant  has continued  to  treat the
   distance from  his  residence  to his  new  duty station    as  a
   commutable distance, has  not put his home on the market, and has
   not availed himself of the options available to him to accomplish
   a  change  of residence  closer  to  his new  duty  station.   As
   claimant chooses to  continue to commute from  his residence now,
   even  though he has  the authority to  accomplish a PCS  move, we
   find no  basis to award  him the costs  he seeks for  mileage and
   tolls prior to the issuance of his PCS orders. 
 
                                Decision
 
        The claim is denied.
 
 
 
                                 ______________________________
                                 ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                 Board Judge