Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405



 

                      _____________________



                        November 28, 2003

                      _____________________





                         GSBCA 16243-RELO





                In the Matter of PATRICK O. WALSH





     Patrick O. Walsh, Lakewood, CO, Claimant.



     C. Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park Service, Department of the Interior,

appearing for Department of the Interior.



NEILL, Board Judge.



     Claimant, Mr. Patrick O. Walsh, asks that we review his agency's denial of his request

for reimbursement of expenses associated with renting a car for the first eight days spent at

his new duty station.  For the reasons stated below, we affirm the agency's denial of the

claim.  



                            Background



     In March of this year, Mr. Walsh transferred from a permanent duty station (PDS)

with the United States Navy at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to a new PDS with the National Park

Service in Denver, Colorado.  The transfer was deemed to be in the Government's interest. 

His travel authorization provided, among other things, for the shipment of his household

goods and for payment of his temporary quarters and subsistence expenses (TQSE) for thirty

days.  In arranging for the transfer, the Park Service also was disposed to pay for the

shipment of Mr. Walsh's privately owned vehicle.  



     Due to the time required to ship Mr. Walsh's vehicle to his new duty station, he was

told that his vehicle would not be available to him for at least four weeks after his arrival in

Denver.  In view of the expected delay, claimant, on arriving at Denver and while still in

temporary quarters, decided to purchase a second vehicle.  It took Mr. Walsh eight days to

shop for and eventually purchase the vehicle.  In the meantime, he rented a car to meet his

transportation needs.  



     Mr. Walsh's subsequent claim for reimbursement of the costs associated with renting

a car during that brief eight-day period was rejected by his agency on the grounds that

payment was not authorized under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).  In response, Mr.

Walsh writes: "Because of the logistics involved in relocating from outside the continental

U.S., use of a rental car at the new duty station for a brief period of time was an unavoidable

and legitimate relocation expense."  He asks, therefore, that we review the agency's denial

of his claim.  



                            Discussion



     In rejecting Mr. Walsh's claim, the agency relies on an express provision of the FTR

which reads in part: "TQSE does not include local transportation expenses incurred during

occupancy of temporary quarters . . . ."  41 CFR 302-6.2 (2002) (FTR 302-6.2).  This

provision also refers readers to a related provision which reads: 



     May I be reimbursed for local transportation expenses incurred while I am

     occupying temporary quarters? 



          Generally no; local transportation expenses are not TQSE, and there is

     no authority to pay such expenses under TQSE.  You may, however, be

     reimbursed under part 301-4 of this subtitle for necessary transportation

     expenses if you perform local official business while you are occupying

     temporary quarters.



FTR 302-6.18.



     Nothing in the record indicates that claimant needed a rental car for purposes of

conducting official business in the Denver area.  Rather, his purpose in renting the vehicle

appears to have been to meet personal local transportation needs, such as getting between

work and his temporary quarters or shopping for a second vehicle.  We, therefore, find the

agency's reliance on the FTR provisions it cites in its report to us to be well placed and

entirely in accordance with the many rulings we ourselves have made on similar claims. 

See, e.g., Thomas Slonaker, GSBCA 15425-RELO, 02-1 BCA   31,447; Jacqueline

Williams, GSBCA 15026-RELO, 99-2 BCA   30,538; Brian P. Gariffa, GSBCA

13798-RELO, 97-2 BCA   29,033; Thomas S. Ward, GSBCA 13825-RELO, 97-1 BCA 

 28.955.



     Mr. Walsh apparently believes that, because his relocation was from outside the

continental United States (OCONUS) rather than simply from a duty station within the

continental United States (CONUS), he is entitled to different treatment.  He does not

provide us, however, with any statutory or regulatory authority, and we know of none, which

would justify departure from the established rule.  Indeed, we have previously held that

employees transferring to a duty station in CONUS from an OCONUS post are nonetheless

subject to the same restriction -- even where the agency, in recognition of the longer time

required to ship the employee's vehicle, has mistakenly authorized use of a rental car at the

new duty station while on TQSE.  Daniel M. Robers, GSBCA 15525-RELO, 01-2 BCA 

 31,454; Michael L. Noll, GSBCA 15136-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,887.  The distinction which

claimant attempts to make with regard to his own specific case, therefore, does nothing to

undermine the correctness of the agency's ruling, which we affirm.    



                             Decision



     Mr. Walsh's claim is denied.  





                                        __________________________

                                        EDWIN B. NEILL

                                        Board Judge