Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 April 18, 2000 GSBCA 14935-RELO In the Matter of SYNITA REVELS Synita Revels, Frankfort, NY, Claimant. Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, and James L. Swift, Associate General Counsel, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). The claimant has asked the Board to reconsider its decision in Synita Revels, GSBCA 14935-RELO, 00-1 BCA 30,716 (1999). In that decision, we denied a claim for interest on an agency's delayed reimbursement of a transferred employee's real estate transaction expenses. 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 (48 CFR 6104.7 (1999)). The claimant's request does nothing more than reiterate the able arguments she made earlier. Thus, the request must be denied. We do, however, take this opportunity to note that since we issued our opinion in this case, a federal court of appeals, in ruling on a closely related issue, has made comments which are in full support of the position we took.[foot #] 1 See Social Security Administration v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 201 F.3d 465, 471-72 (D.C. Cir. 2000). ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 We also note that neither party mentioned, relative to reconsideration, a matter discussed in a footnote in our decision: whether we should have discussed the merits of the claim at all. In any event, because we denied the claim, the result would have been the same whether we had addressed the merits or not: we could not settle the claim in favor of the employee. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- The claimant argued that interest is due on the reimbursement of relocation expenses pursuant to the Back Pay Act, 5 U.S.C. 5596 (1994). This Act provides that amounts payable under one portion of it "shall be payable with interest." Id. 5596(b)(2)(A). The portion in question states: An employee of an agency who, on the basis of a timely appeal or an administrative determination (including a decision relating to an unfair labor practice or a grievance) is found by appropriate authority under applicable law, rule, regulation, or collective bargaining agreement, to have been affected by an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action which has resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or part of the pay, allowances, or differentials of the employee -- is entitled, on correction of the personnel action, to receive for the period for which the personnel action was in effect -- an amount equal to all or any part of the pay, allowances, or differentials, as applicable which the employee normally would have earned or received during the period if the personnel action had not occurred. Id. 5596(b)(1)(A)(i). We held that reimbursements of relocation expenses were not "pay, allowances, or differentials" under the Back Pay Act, and that the Act's interest-mandating provision consequently did not apply to the reimbursements made to Ms. Revels. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recently considered a similar issue: Are liquidated damages required to be paid to federal employees "pay, allowances, or differentials," as that term is used in the Back Pay Act, such that interest is due on late payments of those damages? The court answered this question in the negative. After analyzing the matter with reference to several of the same decisions we cited, the court stated: In summary, the phrase "pay, allowances, or differentials" includes only payments and benefits of the sort that an employee normally earns or receives as part [of] the regular compensation for performing his job. The statutory language, the [Office of Personnel Management] regulation, and judicial and administrative precedent, as well as the command that we construe waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly, all mandate this measured interpretation of pay, allowances, and differentials. . . . Our decision that the failure to pay timely the award of liquidated damages does not give rise to recoverable interest against a government agency rests . . . also [on the conclusion] that the failure timely to pay those damages does not constitute a "withdrawal or reduction" of compensation as contemplated in the statute. . . . [N]ot every failure to deliver to an individual employed by the government a sum of money to which he is entitled constitutes a withdrawal or reduction of such pay, allowances, or differentials. Social Security Administration, 201 F.3d at 471-72. The court of appeals' reasoning and holding are fully consistent with our conclusions in Revels. The decision in Social Security Administration supports our determination that the claimant here is not entitled to payment of interest on the reimbursement which her agency belatedly made to her. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge