_______________________________________________________
 
          REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED: January 29, 1998
        _______________________________________________________
 
 
                             GSBCA 14337-R
 
 
                           RAYMOND F. MILLER,
 
                                                Appellant,
 
                                   v.
 
                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
 
                                                Respondent.
 
        Raymond F. Miller, pro se, Hastings, MN.
 
        Leigh Ann Holt, Office of Regional Counsel, General Services
   Administration, Denver, CO, counsel for Respondent.
 
   WILLIAMS, Board Judge.
 
        On   January 2,  1998,   appellant   filed   a  motion   for
   reconsideration  of the Board's decision of December 19, 1997, in
   which  the Board denied  appellant's claim for  expenses incurred
   due  to his  purchase of  an  allegedly defective  vehicle at  an
   auction  conducted by the  General Services Administration (GSA).
   Appellant elected to have  his claim processed under  the Board's
   small claims procedure.
 
        In  his request for reconsideration, appellant contends that
   the Board overlooked  an issue.  Specifically,  appellant states:
   "The one  issue I  feel you overlooked  is the  sheet of  all the
   vehicles sold that day at Pierre, SD, 57501 -- Sale 81FBPS  95044
   -- July 17, 1995 -- a total of 89 vehicles -- of that huge amount
   of high mileage vehicles  only one, No. 38,  is listed as  having
   anything wrong.  Which is impossible to have 89 vehicles and only
   one having  any disclosure."   Appellant also  contends that  the
   Board refused to accept the expert body shop testimony saying the
   vehicle  had been  in  an  accident and  that  the Board  ignored
   certain  aspects  of  the  repair order.    On  January 9,  1998,
   appellant submitted a bill for the fourth windshield installed in
   the vehicle  at issue,  reiterating that he  knew nothing  of the
   repairs done to the vehicle prior to purchase.
 
                               Discussion
 
        Appellant has not  set forth any newly  discovered evidence,
   mistake, fraud,  or other  grounds enumerated  in Rule 133(a)  or
   established  by  common   law  or  equity  which   would  warrant
   reconsideration.     Rule 132(a).     The  Board   has  carefully
   considered the record in this  case including all of the evidence
   pointed out in appellant's motion for reconsideration.  The  fact
   that  of eighty-nine  vehicles  sold only  one  had a  disclosure
   accompanying its  description does  not prove  that the  specific
   vehicle at issue was misdescribed.
 
        The Board denied the claim because GSA had not warranted the
   condition of  the  vehicle.   In  addition,  appellant  only  had
   fifteen days from the date of purchase within which to submit his
   claim   but  waited over  two  years.   These conclusions  remain
   unchanged  by   any  of   the   arguments  in   the  motion   for
   reconsideration or in appellant's subsequent correspondence.
 
                                Decision
 
        The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
 
 
 
                                      ______________________________
                                      MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                      Board Judge