Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ February 28, 2000 ______________________ GSBCA 14718-RELO In the Matter of JAMES H. SHAW James H. Shaw, Sacramento, CA, Claimant. Betty Pugner, Finance and Accounting Officer, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento, CA, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, James H. Shaw, has asked for reconsideration of our decision sustaining a determination by the Corps of Engineers denying his claim for recovery of the expenses of shipping his car from Baltimore, Maryland to Sacramento, California. Claimant incurred this expense in connection with a permanent change of station (PCS) in June 1998. James H. Shaw, GSBCA 14718-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,359. Mr. Shaw argued initially that his shipping expenses should be reimbursed because he did not have time nor did he want to sell the car. He calculated a significant savings was realized by the Corps in terms of salary, mileage, and per diem over nine days of travel time to drive the car cross-country. He also pointed out that in September 1996, legislation was enacted authorizing Government agencies to reimburse these costs. The Corps denied his claim because the amendment to the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), implementing this statutory change, was not effective until August 1998, shortly after claimant completed his PCS move. In its decision, the Board noted that the legislation authorizing agencies to reimburse employees for the cost of transporting a privately owned vehicle (POV) to a new official station was enacted in September 1996. 5 U.S.C. 5727(c) (Supp. III 1997). The legislation became effective in March 1997; on March 23, 1997, implementing regulations were published in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), part 302-10. The FTR permits agencies to authorize transportation of a POV to the new official station when an agency determines that it is advantageous and cost-effective to the Government. 41 CFR 302-10.4 (1997). The implementing FTR provisions contemplated that each agency would establish policies governing the circumstances under which it would allow or authorize reimbursement of the costs of transporting a POV to the new duty station. 41 CFR 302-10.502. The Department of Defense (DoD) revised chapter 11 of the JTR to establish its policy governing the shipment of POVs in connection with a PCS wholly within the continental United States effective August 17, 1998. JTR C11000. JTR C11009 provides that a DoD component may authorize shipment of a vehicle if it finds that it is advantageous to the Government after analyzing the costs and benefits associated with shipping the vehicle. This provision is not applicable when the effective date of transfer is prior to August 17, 1998, as is the case here. Before August 17, DoD had no procedures for approving shipment of POVs within the continental United States. The Board found that, even though claimant may have saved the Corps money by electing to ship his POV and fly to California from Baltimore, this did not automatically entitle him to recoup the cost of transporting the vehicle. The statute and implementing regulations contemplate only that the agency may, if it finds that doing so would be advantageous, authorize payment of this cost. The Board made several points in its discussion. First, from the record before the Board at the time, it did not appear that Mr. Shaw had consulted with the Corps or that the Corps had authorized shipment of the vehicle -- the travel orders issued to Mr. Shaw contemplated that he would drive his POV cross-country. Further, and of more significance, the FTR contemplates that each agency will establish its own policies governing the payment of these costs. The JTR provisions were not in effect at the time Mr. Shaw moved to Sacramento. These provisions, on their face, do not apply retroactively. In the absence of the appropriate policy implementing the FTR, DoD did not have the mechanism in place to offer this benefit to transferring employees. Thus, the Board concluded that the claim should be denied. Mr. Shaw has asked that the Board reconsider its decision based on additional information he supplied in his request. The new information consists of an exchange of electronic mail messages reflecting correspondence between claimant's supervisor and another Corps employee in the Human Resources office. In this correspondence, claimant's supervisor agreed to authorize the expenditure. In response to the request for reconsideration, the Corps has stated that the additional information showing that claimant's supervisor had approved the expenditure did not change the agency's position -- in the absence of the implementing JTR provisions, which became effective after Mr. Shaw's move, it did not have authority to reimburse this cost. We agree with the Corps. The new information supplied by Mr. Shaw shows that he did in fact consult with the agency and suggests that he may well have been misled by his supervisor's willingness to approve the shipment of his POV. The Board has consistently held, however, that erroneous authorization of benefits does not by itself entitle an employee to the benefits sought where there is no legal basis for entitlement. E.g., Charles T. Loverdi, GSBCA 14232-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,795. The Corps did not have the authority to reimburse Mr. Shaw for this expense, which was incurred prior to the effective date of the implementing JTR provisions on August 17, 1998. Accordingly, claimant's request for reconsideration must be denied. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge