Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


                          ______________

                          April 19, 2002
                          ______________


                         GSBCA 15800-RELO


               In the Matter of RICHARD D. GRULICH


     Richard D. Grulich, Madison, AL, Claimant.

     Robert M. D'Errico, Director, Resource Management, Transatlantic Programs Center,
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Winchester, VA,
appearing for Department of the Army.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     Claimant challenges the agency's decision that his household goods weighed in excess
of 18,000 pounds.  Because claimant has not established that the agency's determination of
the weight of his household goods was erroneous, we deny the claim.

                            Background

     Richard D. Grulich is an employee of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 
In late February 2000, the Corps transferred Mr. Grulich from Washington, D.C., to a new
duty station in Huntsville, Alabama.  Mr. Grulich's travel authorization provided that he was
authorized to ship 18,000 pounds of household goods to his new duty station at the agency's
expense, and the agency hired a moving company to transport those goods.  The moving
company charged the Corps $8342.37 for transporting 27,560 pounds of household goods. 
The charge was supported by a bill of lading, a scale ticket, and two certified automated truck
scale weight tickets.  The bill of lading shows that the net weight of Mr. Grulich's household
goods was 27,560 pounds.  The scale ticket, which is for one of two shipments, shows a
gross weight of 11,480 pounds, a tare weight of 8060 pounds, and a net weight of 3420
pounds.  Regarding the second shipment, one of the certified automated truck scale weight
tickets shows a weight of 63,000 pounds and the other shows a weight of 38,860 pounds, for
a net weight of 24,140 pounds.  The net weight of the shipment shown on the scale ticket
(3420 pounds) plus the net weight of the shipment shown on the weight tickets (24,140
pounds) is the same as the net weight shown on the bill of lading (27,560 pounds).  

     After the Corps paid the moving company's charges, it informed Mr. Grulich that he
was responsible for reimbursing the Corps for charges attributable to the weight of his
household goods in excess of 18,000 pounds.  The Corps determined that 18,000 pounds
made up 65.32% of the total weight of the shipment and that the excess weight of 9560
pounds made up 34.68% of the shipment.  The Corps billed Mr. Grulich $2893, which is
34.68% of the amount that it paid to the moving company.  [Foot # 1 ]  

     
****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ]         The Corps was slightly generous to Mr. Grulich in its calculations
(9560  27,560   $8342.37 = $2893.80).  We leave it to the agency to decide whether to ask
Mr. Grulich for the additional amount.   
****************** Footnote End ************

Mr. Grulich contends that the documentation provided by the Corps does not establish that
his household goods actually weighed 27,560 pounds.  He explains that he told the Corps that
his copy of one of the certified automated truck scale weight tickets was illegible, so a Corps
employee wrote the weights on the ticket for him.  In addition, he says that the scale ticket
originally showed a gross weight of 8060 pounds and was altered to show a gross weight of
11,480 pounds.  He concludes that the alteration of the scale ticket and the handwriting on
the weight ticket render the agency's determination of weight void.  He reaches the same
conclusion regarding the bill of lading because the driver's signature is illegible.  In addition,
Mr. Grulich questions whether his goods actually weighed 27,560 pounds because someone
told him before he moved that his goods were approximately 2000 pounds overweight and
he subsequently disposed of quite a few heavy items.  [Foot # 2 ]  

                                 
****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 2 ]         In his reply to the agency's submission, Mr. Grulich mentions that some
of his belongings were lost by the moving company.  This Board lacks the authority to
resolve a claim for loss or damage resulting from a move.  Mr. Grulich will have to pursue
his loss claim within his agency.  Theodore D. Sergent, GSBCA 14859-RELO, 99-2 BCA 
 30,495.
****************** Footnote End ************

 Discussion

     If Mr. Grulich's household goods weighed 27,560 pounds, he is responsible for the
costs attributable to the weight in excess of 18,000 pounds.  The federal statute that governs
Mr. Grulich's claim provides that when an agency transfers an employee from one permanent
duty station to another in the interest of the Government, the Government is responsible for
the costs of transporting and storing not more than 18,000 pounds net weight of the
employee's household goods.  5 U.S.C.   5724(a)(2) (2000).  This statutory limitation is
implemented in the Federal Travel Regulation, which applies to all civilian employees of the
Federal Government, and in the Joint Travel Regulations, which apply to civilian employees
of the Department of Defense.  41 CFR 302-8.2(a) (2000); JTR C8000-A (Jan. 1, 2000). 
Because the Government cannot pay for moving any more than 18,000 pounds of household
goods, the employee whose goods are moved is responsible for reimbursing the Government
for the costs attributable to any weight in excess of 18,000 pounds.  41 CFR 302-8.3(b)(5). 

     The agency's determination regarding the weight of Mr. Grulich's household goods
is based upon the documentation contained in the record.  The net weight shown on the bill
of lading is 27,560 pounds.  This is the same as the sum of the net weight shown on the scale
ticket (3420 pounds) and the net weight shown on the certified automated truck scale weight
tickets (24,140 pounds).  In order to convince us to set aside the agency's determination,
Mr. Grulich must show clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud.  Ira A.C. Peets,
GSBCA 15294-RELO, 00-2 BCA   31,058; Douglas V. Smith, GSBCA 14655-RELO, 99-1
BCA   30,171 (1998); Robert G. Gindhardt, GSBCA 14288-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,405
(1997); Jayme A. Norris, GSBCA 13663-RELO, 97-2 BCA   29,049.  Mr. Grulich says that
we should doubt the reliability of one of the certified automated truck scale weight tickets
because a Corps employee wrote on the document, of the scale ticket because he says it was
altered, and of the bill of lading because the driver's signature is unclear. 

       Because we do not share Mr. Grulich's doubts about the reliability of the documents
used by the Corps to establish the weight of his shipment, we do not find the clear and
substantial evidence needed in order to set aside the agency's determination that his
household goods weighed 27,560 pounds.  Although a Corps employee wrote on an unclear
copy of one of the of the certified automated truck scale weight tickets, this is immaterial to
our resolution of the claim because the copies of both of the tickets in our record are
perfectly clear.  Turning to the scale ticket, we see in the box showing the gross weight of
the vehicle that both "8060 Lb" and "11480 Lb" are typed or printed one on top of the other
and "11480" is handwritten above those two figures.  The only figure printed in the box
showing the tare weight of the vehicle is "8060 Lb" and the net weight is handwritten as 3420
pounds.  The manner in which Mr. Grulich reads the ticket would have it say that both the
gross weight and the tare weight are 8060 pounds, which makes no sense if the vehicle was
loaded.  It seems likely that "8060 Lb" was printed or typed by mistake in the box showing
the gross weight, and that the handwritten "11480" in that box was meant to show that the
gross weight of the vehicle was 11,480 pounds, which is consistent with the sum of the 8060
pound tare weight and the 3420 pound net weight.  Finally, even though the driver's signature
on the bill of lading is unclear, this does not establish that the information contained in the
bill of lading is inaccurate.  Many signatures, including several affixed to documents
contained in our record, would be indecipherable without a typed name beneath them.  Poor
penmanship does not constitute clear and substantial evidence of error or fraud. 

     Mr. Grulich also says that someone told him before the move that his goods were
approximately 2000 pounds overweight, and that he disposed of several heavy items.  Such
an approximation, however, does not establish the actual weight of Mr. Grulich's household
goods.  An estimate does not overcome the evidence provided by the bill of lading, the scale
ticket and the weight tickets.  Helene Mikes, GSBCA 15374-RELO, 00-2 BCA   31,138;
Ira A.C. Peets; Douglas V. Smith; Jayme A. Norris.   

     Because the statute provides that agencies will pay for shipping no more than 18,000
pounds of goods, Mr. Grulich is liable for the cost of shipping 9560 pounds of household
goods.  

     The claim is denied.




                                   __________________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge