Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                        ________________________
 
                              May 30, 2001
                        ________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 15025-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of JAMES T. ABBOTT
 
 
        James T. Abbott, Los Angeles, CA, Claimant.
 
        Bruce Krasker,  Defense Contract  Management District  East,
   Boston, MA, appearing for Defense Logistics Agency.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant,  James T.  Abbott,  seeks  reconsideration of  our
   decision  denying  relocation expenses  in  conjunction with  his
   permanent change of station (PCS). 
 
        At the outset,  the agency contends that  claimant's request
   for  reconsideration is  untimely since  the  decision was  dated
   May 11,  2000,  and   claimant  did  not  file  his  request  for
   reconsideration until September 6, 2000.  
 
        The Board sent the decision on May 12, 2000, to claimant via
   certified mail.   Although the decision was postmarked on May 12,
   2000, the  envelope containing the  decision was returned  to the
   Board unopened on  August 1, 2000,  with the  marking "Return  to
   Sender - Unclaimed."  The  unclaimed envelope was marked with the
   annotation  "N/L 5/15/00."  According to the United States Postal
   Service, this  annotation means "Notice  Left."  The notice  is a
   Standard Form 3849, which notifies  the addressee that a delivery
   of  certified mail  had been  attempted  and advises  him how  to
   arrange for redelivery or pick-up within fifteen days.  The Board
   remailed the decision to claimant via certified mail on August 2,
   2000.   According to the  receipt, claimant did not  receive this
   certified mail until August 26, 2000.  
 
        Rule 407  provides  that  a  motion for  reconsideration  is
   timely only if it is received by the Board within thirty calendar
   days   after    the   decision   was   issued.      48 CFR 6104.7
   (1999).[foot #] 1     Claimant  admittedly   did  not   file  his
   request for reconsideration within thirty days of issuance of the
   decision, and asks us to deviate from our rules and permit him to
   seek reconsideration  within thirty  days of  his receipt of  the
   decision.  Claimant's failure to  collect certified mail does not
   entitle him  to  an extension  of the  Board's filing  deadlines.
   See, e.g., Automation & Telecommunications Solutions, Inc., AGBCA
   97-190-1, 97-2 BCA    29,276  ("The letter was sent  by certified
   mail but was returned unclaimed.  It is Appellant's obligation to
   maintain  a  current  address  and  to  pick  up  mail  delivered
   there."); A-1  Fuelwood Co., AGBCA  86-137-1, 86-2  BCA    18,765
   (motion for reconsideration of dismissal for failure to prosecute
   denied  where "[a]ppellant's only excuse  is a problem of picking
   up mail  during Post Office  hours.  Certified mail  is routinely
   used by the Board to verify  receipt . . . .  Failure  to collect
   certified mail  does not  constitute  an excuse  [for failing  to
   prosecute  an   appeal].").    Because   claimant's  request  for
   reconsideration  was not submitted within thirty days of issuance
   of  our  decision,  the request  is  untimely.   E.g.,  Janice M.
   Gentile, GSBCA 14457-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,644.
 
 
        Even if  we were  to deem  the request timely,  there is  no
   basis  for  reconsideration.   As  grounds  for  reconsideration,
   claimant  contends that the  Board erred  in concluding  that the
   agency made  a determination  that  the claimant's  move was  not
   incident to  transfer.   Specifically, claimant  argues that  the
   agency articulated its arguments for  the first time in its brief
   before this  Board and  not initially  in determining  claimant's
   eligibility.   This Board seriously considers every argument made
   by a claimant  or agency regardless of whether  such argument was
   made during  the agency's prior  consideration of the claim.   We
   will not bar a valid, relevant argument simply because it was not
   raised earlier.  
 
        Claimant also contends that the Board's decision in his case
   is inconsistent with John V. Duncan, GSBCA 15230-RELO, 00-2 BCA  
   30,950, where the Board stated in dicta:
 
             By not responding to simple requests for months on
        end,  then  abruptly  and  without  cogent  explanation
        denying  those  requests,  and  by making  the  denials
        without regard to  applicable regulations, [the agency]
        failed to perform its basic duties to Dr. Duncan. 
 
        The problem in Duncan was that the agency delayed responding
   to the  claimant's request for an  extension of time in  which to
   decide whether to participate in the relocation services program,
   and then  denied the request on the ground  that the time for the
   claimant's  election had passed.   The claimant later took action
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 Claimant was provided a copy of the Board's rules
   in the Board's Notice of Docketing on May 17, 1999. 
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
   on his  own which made  participation in the  program impossible.
   Mr.  Abbott's  situation is  different  from Dr.  Duncan's.   Mr.
   Abbott never  received authorization for  any PCS cost,  since he
   was  not  issued travel  orders,  and  he  himself recognized  --
   indeed, he advised other employees as part of his duties  -- that
   costs could not be recovered in the absence of orders.  Duncan is
   not relevant to this case.
 
 
        Claimant also argues that  the Board failed to consider  and
   give proper weight to appropriate  factors in evidence and failed
   to consider that Congress had allocated  funding for PCS expenses
   in this  case.   Each of  these arguments was  considered by  the
   Board  and raised by  appellant in conjunction  with his original
   response to  the agency's  memorandum of  law and the  voluminous
   exhibits filed with his claim.
 
        Under  the Board's  Rules of  Procedure, "Mere  disagreement
   with a decision  or re-argument of points  already made is  not a
   sufficient ground for  seeking reconsideration."  Rule 407.   The
   claimant's  request does  nothing more  than  reiterate the  able
   arguments he  made earlier.   Thus, the  request must  be denied.
   Synita  Revels, GSBCA 14935-RELO, 00-1 BCA    30,896.   The Board
   concluded  that the  agency had  wide  discretion in  determining
   whether  to  reimburse  short-term relocation  expenses  and  the
   agency did  not abuse  its discretion here.   Although  the Board
   recognized  that the agency  could have exercised  its discretion
   differently, it  may  not  overturn  the  agency's  determination
   unless that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or an
   abuse  of  discretion.   Claimant has  not articulated  any valid
   basis for reconsideration.
 
                                Decision
 
        The request for reconsideration is denied.
    
 
 
 
   ________________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge