Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405



                   ___________________________



                          July 26, 2005

                   ___________________________





                        GSBCA 16670-TRAV 





                In the Matter of BILLY LEE BELCHER





     Billy Lee Belcher, Pueblo, CO, Claimant.



     Peter A. Campagna, Deputy General Counsel, Litigation Division, Employment Law

Branch, Headquarters Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Departments of the Army and

Air Force, Dallas, TX, appearing for Department of Defense.



GOODMAN, Board Judge.



     Claimant is a civilian employee of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAES

or agency).  He has asked that this Board review the agency's denial of his claim of

entitlement to unspecified costs he alleges he incurred during a five-year period during which

he claims he was on temporary duty (TDY).



                        Factual Background



     Claimant was living in Pueblo, Colorado, when he was hired in May 1999 by the

AAES and sent to the agency's Distribution Center in Waco, Texas, for orientation and

training as a truck driver.  After training, he returned to Pueblo, Colorado, and commuted

daily to duty at Fort Carson, Colorado, a distance of approximately thirty-five miles.  He

drove round-trip missions to and from Fort Carson and returned home every night.



     From the beginning of his employment with the AAES through January 2005 claimant

was issued blanket TDY orders which designated his official duty station as "Waco

Distribution Center" and authorized TDY to deliver "merchandise to branches, exchanges

of distribution centers" pursuant to an itinerary from "Ft. Carson, CO to CONUS exchanges

and distribution centers as directed - return: Ft. Carson." 



      In January 2005, the agency realized that claimant had been erroneously paid

according to the Wage Schedule prevailing in Waco, Texas, apparently because his TDY

orders designated Waco as his official duty station.  The agency sought to recoup wages  paid

to claimant in excess of those to which he had been entitled.  



     Shortly thereafter, claimant submitted a request, based upon the designation in his

travel orders that his official duty station was Waco, Texas, that the agency reimburse him

an unspecified amount for "expenses incurred while on official Temporary Duty Travel and

. . .  any and all entitlements associated with Temporary Duty Travel" from the beginning of

his employment through January 7, 2005.

 [Foot # 1 ] 



****************** Footnote Begin **********

[Foot # 1 ]         There is no evidence in the record of this case that claimant submitted travel

vouchers specifying expenses actually incurred for which he claims reimbursement.

****************** Footnote End ************



     The agency denied claimant's request, stating that an employee is only on temporary

duty when on official business away from the employee's permanent duty station.  Despite

the designation of Waco, Texas, as his official duty station in claimant's orders, and

claimant's assertions that he received his pay and other human resource services from the

Waco Distribution Center, the agency found that his permanent or official duty station was

the vicinity of Pueblo and Fort Carson, Colorado, as he lived in Pueblo and commuted to Fort

Carson daily.  [Foot # 2 ]  As claimant commuted from Pueblo to Fort Carson, drove his

missions, and returned home every night, the agency determined that he was not on TDY

travel. 



****************** Footnote Begin **********

[Foot # 2 ]         In making this determination, the agency relied upon the regulation

contained in  its Exchange Operating Procedure (EOP) which states that " [A] permanent

duty station is the building or other place (base, post, or activity) where an employee

regularly reports for duty. Permanent duty station can also mean the residence or other

quarters from which the employee regularly  commutes to and from work."  EOP A1-23

(March 1999).

****************** Footnote End ************





     Claimant has asked this Board to review the agency's determination.  The agency has

filed a response, including a motion to dismiss this case.  The agency asserts that claimant, 

as a member of a collective bargaining unit, could have, and therefore should have, raised

this issue through the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreement

between the agency and the bargaining unit.  The agency further asserts that claimant was not

eligible for temporary duty entitlements, as his permanent duty station is and always has been

Fort Carson, Colorado, he did not file travel vouchers as required by agency procedures, he

did not incur travel expenses, and he did not exhaust his administrative remedies at the

agency level.                            Discussion



     If a claim concerning expenses of travel or relocation is susceptible to resolution

under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement's grievance procedure, we lack the

authority to settle the claim using our administrative procedures unless the agreement

explicitly and unambiguously excludes the disputed matter from its procedures.  Rolando J.

Jiminez, GSBCA 15670-TRAV, 05-1 BCA   32,916; Carla Dee Gallegos, GSBCA

14609-RELO, 99-1 BCA   30,300. 



     The agency has submitted a complete copy of the collective bargaining agreement. 

That agreement contains a detailed grievance procedure which states that it will be the sole

and exclusive procedure available to the employer, the union, and the employees of the unit

for the resolution of grievances.  The agreement defines a grievance as any complaint by any

employee concerning "any matter relating to the employment of the employee" or "any

claimed violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule, or regulation

affecting conditions of employment."  The agreement contains forms for employees to use

to initiate the grievance procedure, and specific procedures to be followed thereafter.  If the

decision on a grievance processed under the grievance procedure is not satisfactory, either

party may refer the issue to arbitration, and the agreement contains detailed procedures for

arbitration. 



     This claim involves a complaint of an alleged violation, misinterpretation or

misapplication of a regulation affecting a condition of employment, i.e., the regulation that

defines claimant's official duty station.   This subject is not governed by statute.  See, e.g.,

Rolando J. Jiminez.  Disputes regarding such matters are specifically included in the

grievance procedure.  Consequently, the agreement's grievance procedure is the exclusive

means available to claimant for resolving his claim.



                            Decision

                                

     The claim is dismissed.









                                   ___________________________________

                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN

                                   Board Judge