Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ October 29, 1999 ____________________ GSBCA 15072-RELO In the Matter of DONNY FLORES Donny Flores, LaPlata, MD, Claimant. Bonnie Britten, Chief, Travel Policy Division, Office of Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. NEILL, Board Judge. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3529 (Supp. III 1997), the Department of Veterans Affairs asks our opinion regarding an employee's claim for the expenses of shipping his privately owned vehicle (POV) and renting a vehicle pending the arrival of his POV at his new duty station. Based upon information provided by the agency, we conclude that the claim for the expense of shipping the POV may be paid but the claim for the cost of renting a vehicle pending delivery of the POV may not. Discussion In the fall of 1998, Mr. Donny Flores, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, was transferred from Oakland, California, to San Juan, Puerto Rico. He arrived in San Juan on September 11, 1998. Almost immediately thereafter, he was unexpectedly reassigned to Washington, D.C. The agency deemed this to be in the Government's best interest owing to a need to fill certain vacant critical positions at agency headquarters. On September 23, Mr. Flores and his family arrived in Washington. He began work there on September 25. Upon learning of his transfer to Washington, Mr. Flores requested the carrier responsible for transporting his household goods and POV (a minivan owing to the size of his family) to redirect shipment to Washington as soon as possible. Mr. Flores' POV was delivered to him in Washington on October 23. From September 23 through October 23, he rented a minivan since his own POV had not yet arrived. Although the agency recommends reimbursement to Mr. Flores for the cost of shipping his POV from Oakland to Washington, it nonetheless remains troubled by certain considerations. First, the agency explains that the determinations required under Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-10.300 through 10.304 were not made before redirecting the POV shipment. See 41 CFR 302-10.300 to 304 (1998). Because the POV was destined for San Juan, the agency questions whether delivery of the vehicle to Mr. Flores in Washington was in violation of the regulatory requirement under FTR 302-10.304 that an employee's POV be delivered only to the new duty station. The particular provisions of concern to the agency appear in subpart D of FTR 302-10, which is entitled: "Transportation of a POV Wholly Within the Continental United States (CONUS)." By its terms, this subpart applies only to employees who transfer within CONUS. Under the definition section of this part of the FTR, "Continental United States" or "CONUS" is defined as meaning "the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia." FTR 302- 1.4(a). As an employee transferred to San Juan from Oakland and immediately thereafter from San Juan to Washington, Mr. Flores is not covered by this part of the regulation. The agency, therefore, need not be concerned with its application. The agency is also concerned, however, with a provision in subpart B of FTR 302-10 which applies to the transportation of POVs to "posts of duty" (i.e. an official duty station outside CONUS, see FTR 302-10.3). Under FTR 302-10.103, a POV must be shipped to the actual post of duty (in this case San Juan) and may not be transported to an alternate location. Again, the question is raised as to whether delivery of the POV to Mr. Flores at Washington is in violation of this requirement. We are told that, pursuant to FTR 302-10.140, the agency made the required determination, before Mr. Flores left Oakland, that it was in the interest of the Government for him to have his POV in San Juan. Based upon that determination, the POV was consigned to the carrier for shipment to San Juan. Under FTR 302-10.201(b), an employee is eligible for transportation of his POV from his post of duty outside CONUS when transferred to a new official duty station within CONUS. Due to the abrupt transfer of Mr. Flores to Washington almost immediately after his arrival in San Juan, shipment of the POV to San Juan was never completed. Since he would have been entitled under the FTR to shipment of the POV to Washington from San Juan, we are untroubled by the fact that the POV ultimately was shipped to him at his new duty station in CONUS without passing first through San Juan. The agency also recommends reimbursement to Mr. Flores for the cost of renting a minivan in Washington pending the arrival of his POV. The agency recognizes that current precedent set by the Comptroller General and continued by this Board prohibits reimbursement for local transportation costs after one has reported to a new official duty station (except for costs incurred in the conduct of official business). Andrew Parr, GSBCA 14058-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,426; Brian P. Gariffa, GSBCA 13798-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,033; Thomas S. Ward, GSBCA 13825-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,955; John G. Shirley, B-234861(July 11, 1989). The agency believes that in this case an exception to this precedent is warranted in view of the extenuating circumstances caused by the Government's sudden transfer of Mr. Flores from San Juan. While we appreciate the agency's desire to offer this employee some redress for the inconvenience caused him and his family by his sudden transfer, we are aware of no basis on which such an exception can be made. It is well established that, absent a specific provision in statute or regulation which might permit it under certain circumstances, neither an agency nor this Board has the authority to waive the applicability of travel statutes or regulations for any individual federal employee who is subject to them. Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,164. We, therefore, concur in the agency's recommendation that Mr. Flores be reimbursed for the cost of shipping his POV to Washington. His claim for payment of costs incurred in renting a vehicle pending delivery of his POV, however, should not be paid. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge