March 21, 2007


                          CBCA 524-RELO


                In the Matter of ROBERT E. SOLOMON


     Robert E. Solomon, Ellenwood, GA, Claimant.

     A. V. Easter, Director, Indianapolis Transportation Payments Office, Defense Finance
and Accounting Service, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     In order for an agency to pay for shipping an employee's household goods, the goods
must be shipped within the time allowed by the agency's regulations.  

                            Background

     In 2002, Mr. Robert E. Solomon was hired by the Department of Defense (DoD) and
assigned to a permanent duty station in Ohio.  In travel orders dated May 2, 2002, DoD
authorized Mr. Solomon to ship his household goods to his duty station using a government
bill of lading (GBL), which meant DoD would hire and pay a carrier to ship the goods. 
Mr. Solomon reported to his duty station on June 3, 2002.  In September 2004, a GBL carrier
shipped Mr. Solomon's household goods to his duty station in Ohio, and DoD paid the
carrier's charges.  

     In August 2005, DoD decided it was not responsible for paying the cost of shipping
Mr. Solomon's household goods because more than two years elapsed between the time he
reported for duty in Ohio and the time his goods were shipped.  As a result of this decision,
DoD asked Mr. Solomon to repay DoD the amount it paid to the carrier.  

     Mr. Solomon asks us to review DoD's decision.  He says someone in a DoD
transportation office told his wife that DoD would pay for the shipment regardless of whether
it occurred more than two years after he reported for duty in Ohio, so long as she made a
request within the two-year period to have the goods shipped at some future time.  

                            Discussion

     As a civilian employee of DoD, Mr. Solomon was subject to the provisions of the
Joint Travel Regulations (JTR).  When Mr. Solomon reported to his duty station in June
2002, these regulations provided DoD would pay the cost of shipping an employee's
household goods, so long as the goods were shipped within two years after the employee
reported to his or her duty station.  JTR C4051, C8305.  There were only three exceptions to
this requirement.  First, the two-year period did not include time spent on furlough if an
employee began active duty military service before the two-year period expired and was
furloughed for the duration of the assignment to the duty station.  Second, the two-year
period did not include time during which shipping restrictions applied to an employee
appointed to a duty station outside the continental United States.  Third, the two-year period
could be extended for up to two additional years if the agency extended the time for an
employee to incur reimbursable residence transaction expenses.  JTR C1057.  Newly hired
employees were not authorized to incur reimbursable residence transaction expenses.  JTR
C4051.  

     The general rule established by the JTR provided DoD would pay for the shipment of
Mr. Solomon's household goods so long as the goods were shipped within two years from
the date he reported for duty in Ohio.  The exceptions to the general rule do not apply to
Mr. Solomon because he was not a furloughed active duty military member, not appointed
to a duty station outside the continental United States, and as a newly hired employee, not
authorized to incur reimbursable residence transaction expenses.  

     Contrary to what Mr. Solomon's wife was apparently told, the JTR did not provide
that DoD would pay for the shipment of Mr. Solomon's household goods regardless of when
they were shipped, so long as she requested the shipment within two years after he reported
for duty in Ohio.  The JTR clearly provided DoD would pay only if the shipment was actually
made within the two-year period.  It is always unfortunate when an employee is provided
with erroneous advice regarding relocation benefits.  However, erroneous advice does not
provide a basis for reimbursement.  Joel Williams, GSBCA 16437-RELO, 04-2 BCA
 32,769.  

     Mr. Solomon suggests he should not be required to repay DoD for shipping his
household goods because repayment would be against equity and good conscience.  Whether
repayment is against equity and good conscience is something an agency takes into
consideration when it considers whether to waive a debt owed by an employee.  5 U.S.C.
 5584(a) (2000).  Waiver of a debt, however, is solely within the agency's discretion and
is not a matter for the Board to consider.  Patricia Russell, GSBCA 14758-RELO, 99-1 BCA
 30,291. 

     We are not free to ignore the provisions of applicable regulations when we consider
a claim, James F. Meyer, GSBCA 14939-RELO, 99-2 BCA  30,490, and the regulations
which apply to Mr. Solomon required him to ship his household goods within two years from
the date he reported for duty in order for DoD to bear the cost of the shipment.  Because
Mr. Solomon did not ship his goods within the two-year period, DoD is not responsible for
paying the cost of the GBL carrier.

     Mr. Solomon's claim is denied.  




                                   _________________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge