B-203381, JUL 7, 1982

B-203381, JUL 7, 1982

DIGEST: CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS DENIED BECAUSE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AFTER EMPLOYEE REPORTED TO NEW DUTY STATION. RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS LIMITED TO THOSE OWNED BY EMPLOYEE ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION.

JOYCE D. HOOD - REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS:

THE ISSUE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE REIMBURSED THE COST OF TRANSPORTING HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHICH WERE ACQUIRED AFTER THE EMPLOYEE REPORTED TO HER NEW DUTY STATION PURSUANT TO PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS. FOR THE REASONS WHICH FOLLOW, THE ANSWER IS NO.

THE MATTER IS PRESENTED HERE UPON A LETTER FROM H. O. MILLER, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE OFFICER, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT CENTER, CAMERON STATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA.

JOYCE D. HOOD, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY, WAS TRANSFERRED FROM CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA, TO ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA. SHE SEEKS REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $159.55, FOR THE SHIPMENT OF NEWLY PURCHASED FURNITURE FROM VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA, TO ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA. THE FURNITURE WAS PURCHASED ON DECEMBER 20, 1980, AFTER MS. HOOD REPORTED FOR DUTY AT HER NEW PERMANENT DUTY STATION ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1980.

PARAGRAPH 2-8.2D OF THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS, FPMR 101-7 (MAY 1973) (FTR), STATES THAT:

"*** NO PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE EMPLOYEE EN ROUTE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW OFFICIAL STATIONS SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSPORTATION UNDER THIS PART."

SINCE THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE ACQUIRED AFTER MS. HOOD REPORTED FOR DUTY IN ALEXANDRIA, THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTING THEM CAN NOT BE REIMBURSED AS THE RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT FOR SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IS LIMITED TO THOSE GOODS OWNED BY THE EMPLOYEE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF HIS TRAVEL AUTHORIZATION. SEE 52 COMP.GEN. 765 (1973), AND RICHARD L. CANAS, B-189358, FEBRUARY 8, 1978, AND CASES CITED THEREIN.

MS. HOOD, HOWEVER, BASES HER REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT ON HER BELIEF THAT SHE HAS ACTED PRUDENTLY AND HAS EXERCISED THE SAME CARE AS IF SHE WERE TRAVELING ON PERSONAL BUSINESS. SPECIFICALLY, SHE STATES THAT SHE HAS NOT REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL STORAGE OF HER PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED FURNITURE, NOR FOR THE CRATING OF FURNITURE, NOR FOR THE APPROXIMATELY 2,260 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS WHICH SHE CLAIMS TO HAVE PERSONALLY MOVED TO HER NEW DUTY STATION. SHE ESTIMATES THAT HER ACTIONS HAVE RESULTED IN A SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF $1,899. IN ESSENCE, MS. HOOD SEEKS TO HAVE THIS OFFICE CONSIDER HER CLAIM FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EQUITY.

WE WILL NOT, HOWEVER, EXERCISE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY GRANTED BY STATUTE. 54 COMP.GEN. 527 (1974). THERE IS NO AUTHORITY APPLICABLE TO OUR OFFICE TO ENABLE US TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR TRANSPORTATION OF AFTER-ACQUIRED HOUSEHOLD GOODS ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT IS DENIED.