B-180897, APR 21, 1975

B-180897, APR 21, 1975

EMPLOYEE WHO WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AS TO WEIGHT SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS INCIDENT TO 1972 TRANSFER, CANNOT CURE DEFECT THROUGH USE OF DOCUMENTATION FROM 1974 TRANSFER, WHERE BOTH SHIPMENTS WERE BY COMMON CARRIER.

PAUL C. WARNER - TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS:

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE US BASED UPON A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION B-180897, JUNE 14, 1974, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF MR. PAUL C. WARNER'S CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF TRANSPORTING HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INCIDENT TO A TRANSFER FROM BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, TO WASHINGTON, D.C. IN 1972. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUNDS THAT MR. WARNER HAD NOT SUPPLIED THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE WEIGHT OF THE GOODS SHIPPED.

ENCLOSED WITH HIS LETTER REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION, MR. WARNER PROVIDED COPIES OF THE BILL OF LADING AND SHIPPING INVENTORY THAT WERE PREPARED WHEN HE WAS TRANSFERRED IN 1974 FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. TO THE PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD, BREMERTON, WASHINGTON. THE FACTS AND APPLICABLE LAW RELATING TO MR. WARNER'S ORIGINAL TRANSFER ARE SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN B- 180897, JUNE 14, 1974, AND WILL NOT BE REPEATED HERE. IN THAT DECISION WE STATED THAT THE MATTER COULD BE REOPENED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IF THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION WAS OBTAINED. BY THAT WE MEANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTATION RELATING TO THE ORIGINAL SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS FROM BREMERTON, WASHINGTON, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., IN 1972. THE BILL OF LADING FOR A SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS SOME TWO YEARS LATER HAS NO PROBATIVE VALUE WITH REGARD TO THE ORIGINAL SHIPMENT.

THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW INSTANCES IN WHICH AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAD FAILED TO OBTAIN THE PROPER WEIGHT CERTIFICATES AT THE TIME OF SHIPMENT WAS ALLOWED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BY RELOADING THE SAME GOODS SOME MONTHS LATER IN A SIMILAR VEHICLE AND THEN OBTAINING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION. SEE B- 169117, MARCH 16, 1970; AND B-172979, JULY 9, 1971. IN EACH OF THOSE CASES, HOWEVER, THE EMPLOYEES HAD TRANSPORTED THEIR HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS THEMSELVES IN LEASED VEHICLES OR PRIVATE CARS WHICH MAY HAVE PRESENTED SOME DIFFICULTIES IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OF THE SHIPMENT AT THE TIME.

HOWEVER, UNLIKE THE PRESENT CASE, WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD, THEY DID PRESENT THE NECESSARY WEIGHT CERTIFICATES. MR. WARNER, HOWEVER, STATES THAT HIS HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS WERE SHIPPED BY COMMON CARRIER WHOSE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES MUST BE BASED ON WEIGHT. THERE IS NO EXCUSE, THEREFORE, FOR HIS FAILURE TO PRESENT EITHER A WEIGHT CERTIFICATE OR A RECEIPTED BILL FROM THE ORIGINAL CARRIER. IN FACT, MR. WARNER HAS NOT EVEN SUBSTANTIATED THE FACT THAT THE SHIPMENT OF HIS GOODS, WAS EVER MADE; HE HAS NO CANCELLED CHECK TO SHOW THE MOVING EXPENSES WERE EVER PAID TO ANYONE NOR HAS HE ASCERTAINED AN AMOUNT CERTAIN FROM EXAMINATION OF HIS CHECKBOOK STUBS OR OTHER RECORDS. WE HAVE NO REASON TO ASSUME, THEREFORE, THAT THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPED IN HIS 1974 MOVE ARE THE SAME HOUSEHOLD GOODS THAT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SHIPPED TWO YEARS EARLIER.

FOR THESE REASONS, DISALLOWANCE OF MR. WARNER'S CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.