Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405
                     ________________________
                          July 15, 2004
                     ________________________
                         GSBCA 15875-RELO
               In the Matter of MARLENE J. WALTERS
     Marlene J. Walters, Cheyenne, WY, Claimant.
     Vickie Smith, Travel Supervisor, National Business Center,
Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of
the Interior.
HYATT, Board Judge.
     Claimant, Marlene J. Walters, is an employee of the Bureau of
Land Management within the  Department of the Interior.  She seeks
reconsideration of a portion of the Board's decision affirming the
Bureau's actions in requiring her to reimburse the agency the
entire cost of transporting and  storing her household goods in the
expectation of a transfer from Cheyenne, Wyoming to Las Vegas,
Nevada.  Ms. Walters became liable for these expenses when she did
not successfully complete training that was a prerequisite to
qualifying for the transfer.  In her request for reconsideration
she states that even if she must repay the expenses associated with
the transport and temporary storage of her household goods, she
should not owe the full amount charged by the agency because the
carrier erroneously overcharged the agency for its services.
                            Background
     Claimant arranged, at agency expense, to have her household
goods packed and stored pending her expected transfer from
Cheyenne, Wyoming to Las Vegas, Nevada, following completion of
training in Phoenix, Arizona.  In order to accommodate claimant's
desire to have her household goods stored immediately, while she
was in the training program, the agency arranged to have them
packed and transported to Denver, Colorado, for storage en route to
the eventual destination in Las Vegas.  Subsequently, Ms. Walters
failed to complete her training and accordingly was not promoted.
She returned to her position in Cheyenne, and her household goods
were returned to Cheyenne as well.
     The Board's initial decision in this matter upheld the
agency's determination to assess Ms. Walters the cost of packing,
transporting, and storing her household goods.  Marlene J. Walters,
GSBCA 15875-RELO, 03-1 BCA   32,124.  In her underlying claim, Ms.
Walters challenged the amount for which she was billed, asserting
that it was excessive and that she should not be liable for such
high charges, particularly since she had asked to store her
household goods in Cheyenne, and had only agreed to Denver because
she was told that was the only option.  She also objected that the
costs incurred were higher than necessary because she was not
properly advised about her options.  The Board concluded that even
if there were any errors or inadequacies in the advice provided to
Ms. Walters concerning her options for storing her household goods,
this would not suffice to relieve her of the obligation to repay
the full costs incurred by the Bureau.  Id.
     In her request for reconsideration, Ms. Walters maintained
that the bill presented to her should still be adjusted because it
appeared to her that the carrier improperly charged the agency for
a move to Las Vegas when the household goods were transported only
to Denver.  She states that she was not aware of the discrepancies
in the invoice when she filed her initial claim.  The Board
reviewed the documentation and asked the Bureau to explain the
charges.
     Following several rounds of submissions in which Ms. Walters
and the Bureau  explained their respective positions, the original
bill presented to Ms. Walters was amended from the amount of
$7079.63 to $5994.43.  The Bureau states that it reviewed the
paperwork after Ms. Walters requested reconsideration and
determined that indeed the moving company had erroneously  charged
the agency for transportation of the household goods to Las Vegas,
when in fact the household goods were transported only as far as
Denver.  Once this error was detected, the moving company amended
its invoice to reflect the actual distance for which claimant's
household goods were transported.
     After reviewing all of the information provided by the parties
to date, there appears to be no further basis for reconsidering or
amending the Board's initial decision.  [Foot # 1 ]  The moving
company has amended its charges to reflect the correct distance of
the move; there is no evidence to justify any further reduction of
the invoice.  Although Ms. Walters remains dissatisfied with the
requirement that she pay for transporting the household goods to
Denver and storage costs there, the Board has already explained why
she is liable for these costs and she has not provided any basis
for reconsideration of this ruling.  As to the overcharges on the
moving company's initial invoice, Ms. Walters' request for
reconsideration is now moot, and, as such, is hereby dismissed.
****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ]         Ms. Walters continues to assert that the charge
should be further reduced to reflect the fact that the mover
unloaded her boxes but did not unpack them.  As we have noted in
other cases, this is not a basis for adjusting the moving charges.
See Wendy J. Hankins, GSBCA 16324-RELO (May 21, 2004).  She also
contends that the mover has not supplied all of the documentation
that it should and asks the Board to require that all pertinent
documentation be provided by the mover in this proceeding.  The
Board has no authority over the mover and as such cannot resolve
the issues raised by Ms. Walters concerning the availability of
further documentation in support of this invoice.
****************** Footnote End ************
__________________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge