January 28, 1998
                                             


                         GSBCA 14236-RELO


           In the Matter of CLAUDIA J. FLEMING-HOWLETT


     Claudia J. Fleming-Howlett, San Antonio, TX, Claimant.

     1st Lt. Paul K. Waring, Financial Services Officer, Air
Education and Training Command, Randolph Air Force Base, TX,
appearing for Department of the Air Force.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Claudia J. Fleming-Howlett, a civilian employee of the
Department of the Air Force, was transferred in the spring of 1996
from Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida, to Randolph Air Force
Base, Texas.  In connection with the move, the Air Force authorized
Ms. Fleming to make a house-hunting trip to Texas and to receive
temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for sixty days.

     Ms. Fleming-Howlett asked the agency to reimburse her for
expenses she incurred on the house-hunting trip and for TQSE.  The
agency paid only a portion of the expenses claimed.  Ms. Fleming-
Howlett then filed a grievance, in connection with which she was
represented by her union steward.  The grievance was eventually
resolved.  Ms. Fleming-Howlett believes that the resolution is not
consistent with provisions of the Department of Defense's Joint
Travel Regulations for civilian employees of that department.  She
has asked us to review her claim and require the agency to make
payment consistent with those regulations.

     According to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, where a
collective bargaining agreement provides procedures for resolving
grievances which are within the scope of the agreement, and the
agreement does not explicitly and unambiguously exclude the
disputed matter from those procedures, the procedures are the
exclusive administrative means for resolving the matter. 
Bernadette Hastak, GSBCA 13938-TRAV, et al., 97-2 BCA  29,091;
accord, True L. Carter, GSBCA 14131-TRAV, et al. (Jan. 14, 1998);
Brian S. Brame, GSBCA 14333-TRAV (Jan. 8, 1998); Henry E. Carroll,
Jr., GSBCA 14206-TRAV (Dec. 29, 1997); William A. Watkins, GSBCA
13970-TRAV, 97-2 BCA  29,222; see also Dunklebarger v. Merit
Systems Protection Board, No. 96-3200 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 1997).

     The collective bargaining agreement between the Commander,
12th Support Group, Randolph Air Force Base, and Local 1840 of the
American Federation of Government Employees (AFL-CIO) contains the
"exclusive procedure available to the parties of this agreement and
employees in the bargaining unit for resolution of grievances." 
Under the agreement, the term "grievance" includes "[a]ny claimed
violation, misinterpretation, or misapplication of any law, rule,
or regulation affecting conditions of employment."  Many matters
are specifically excluded from the procedure, but relocation
expense claims are not among them.  An aggrieved bargaining unit
employee affected by "adverse actions" "may at his/her option raise
the matter under a statutory procedure or the negotiated grievance
procedure, but not both."

     Ms. Fleming-Howlett, the union, and the Air Force, by applying
the exclusive grievance procedure to the claimant's objection to
the agency's initial response to her request for reimbursement of
relocation expenses, have all treated her objection as within the
collective bargaining agreement's definition of "grievance."  Even
if the agency's response may be considered an "adverse action,"
such that the filing of a grievance was optional, the fact is that
the employee did file a grievance as to this matter.  Consequently,
in accordance with established law, we may not consider her request
that we review the matter now.

     The Air Force acknowledges that in responding to Ms. Fleming-
Howlett's request for reimbursement, it advised her that she could
ask the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review its
determination.  (Until mid-1996, under a previous version of 31
U.S.C.  3702, the GAO settled claims by federal civilian employees
involving relocation expenses.  Since then, as a result of
Congressional amendment of this law and administrative delegations
of authority, this Board has performed that function.)  Whether
that advice was incorrect (because the determination could only
have been reviewed under the collective bargaining agreement's
grievance procedure) or explained one permissible option under the
agreement is now immaterial; even if seeking resolution under the
statutory procedure was a permissible option, that choice was
foreclosed when Ms. Fleming-Howlett filed her grievance.





                              _________________________ 
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                              Board Judge