Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________ June 18, 1999 _______________ GSBCA 14939-RELO In the Matter of JAMES F. MEYER James F. Meyer, Dahlgren, VA, Claimant. Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, James F. Meyer, is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (DoD). On December 15, 1997, he was issued orders authorizing him to relocate from his then current residence to his first duty station. The orders authorized shipment of household goods but specified that all claims for reimbursement must be made within two years of his reporting date. Because of his wife's illness, Mr. Meyer has not yet completed the move of his household goods to this first duty station. He has asked that the two-year period specified in his orders for filing claims for reimbursement be extended to three years. Mr. Meyer's agency has denied the request. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service has forwarded the case to us for review. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that the agency's determination that the request cannot be granted is correct. In 1998, Mr. Meyer's wife was diagnosed with serious illness. Since then she has been under the continual care of physicians at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. This entails frequent appointments with a multi- disciplinary team of providers. She has also been scheduled for additional surgery and therapy. When Mr. Meyer agreed to accept a position at the Joint Warfare Analysis Center in Dahlgren, Virginia, it was understood that the Government would move his household goods from his residence in Fairfax, Virginia, to Dahlgren. The orders issued to him confirmed this but expressly provided that any claim for the cost of the relocation must be submitted within two years of his reporting date. Mr. Meyer now states that the illness of his wife and her attendant post-operative care have rendered it virtually impossible to complete this authorized move within the time specified in his orders. For this reason, he asks that the two-year limitation be extended. His commander strongly supports the request. Although sympathetic to Mr. Meyer's situation, his agency has concluded that an extension cannot be granted. As a civilian employee of the DoD, Mr. Meyer is subject to the provisions of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). These regulations state: All travel, including that for dependents, and transportation, including that for HHG [household goods] allowed under these regulations, should be accomplished as soon as possible. Allowable travel and transportation must begin within 2 years from the effective date of an employee's transfer or appointment except that: 1. the 2-year period is exclusive of time spent on furlough for an employee who begins active military service before the expiration of such period . . . . 2. the 2-year period doesn't include any time during which travel and transportation isn't feasible due to shipping restrictions for an employee who is transferred or appointed to or from an OCONUS PDS [outside the continental United States permanent duty station]; and 3. the 2-year period is extended for an additional period of time up to 1 year when the 2-year time limitation for completion of residence transactions is extended under par. C14000-2. JTR C1057.[foot #] 1 Clearly the first and second exception set out above are inapplicable to Mr. Meyer. He is neither an employee on active military service nor an employee transferred or appointed to or from a permanent duty station outside the continental United States. Mr. Meyer is likewise not covered by the third exception. This exception refers to an entitlement to reimbursement for certain real estate transactions occasioned by an employee's transfer. This benefit is extended to individuals already employed by the Federal Government when they are transferred from one permanent duty station to another. Mr. Meyer's orders did not provide for this benefit since he was a new employee proceeding to his first duty station. Charles G. Bakaly, III, GSBCA 14750-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,249. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 A similar provision appears in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). 41 CFR 306-1.6 (1997) (FTR 306-1.6). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- We are left, therefore, with the hard fact that the JTR, which govern in this case, simply make no provision for an extension of the two-year period for the completion of Mr. Meyer's authorized relocation. In the absence of an exception to the general rule set out in the regulations, the request must be denied. This is the conclusion reached by his agency. The decision is correct, for neither the agency nor this Board has the authority to waive the applicability of the regulation. It is well established that, absent a specific provision in statute or regulation which might permit it under certain circumstances, neither an agency nor the Board has the authority to waive the applicability of travel statutes or regulations for any individual federal employee who is subject to them. Michael J. Kunk, GSBCA 14721-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,164 (1998); Defense Intelligence Agency Employee, GSBCA 14745-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,117 (1998); Gordon D. Giffin, GSBCA 14425-RELO (Sept. 29, 1998); Murray Lumpkin, GSBCA 14513-TRAV 98-2 BCA 30,042; Thomas D. Thompson, GSBCA 14496-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,799; Kelly A. Wells, GSBCA 14205-TRAV, 98-1 BCA 29,603; Thomas T. Matteson, GSBCA 14111-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,413 (1997). Decision The agency determination is, therefore, affirmed and Mr. Meyer's request is denied. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge