BNUMBER:  B-261102
DATE:  September 11, 1995
TITLE:  [Letter]

**********************************************************************

B-261102

September 11, 1995

Mr. Mark J. Pitman
RR 2 Box 4159
Bowdoin, ME  04008

Dear Mr. Pitman:

This responds to your March 17, 1995, letter requesting 
reconsideration of Claims Group settlement Z-2868916, Feb. 28, 1994, 
denying your claim for relocation benefits incident to a change of 
residence from Hampton, New Hampshire, to Bowdoin, Maine.

As the Claims Group noted, the payment of relocation benefits is 
authorized for employees who are "transferred in the interest of the 
government from one official station or agency to another for 
permanent duty."  5 U.S.C.  5724(a) (1988).  Based on the record, 
which included material provided by yourself and your agency, the 
Claims Group concluded "that there was no change of duty station; 
rather, you were reassigned to another position at the same duty 
station in Portland, Maine."  (Settlement Certificate, p. 2.)  Given 
this conclusion, the Claims Group determination that you are not 
entitled to reimbursement for your relocation expenses appears 
correct.

However, it has come to our attention that at all times relevant to 
your claim you were a member of a collective bargaining unit 
represented by the American Federation of Government Employees Local 
2906 and that your claim was within the scope of matters subject to 
grievance and arbitration procedures under that agreement.  Had the 
Claims Group been cognizant of this information, the Claims Group 
would not have adjudicated your claim.  The General Accounting Office 
may not settle claims that are subject to a negotiated grievance 
procedure.  Cecil E. Riggs, et al., 71 Comp. Gen. 374 (1992); and 4 
C.F.R.  30.1(b) (1995).  This rule applies regardless of whether the 
claimant avails himself of the grievance procedure.  Paul D. Bills et 
al., B-260475, June 13, 1995.

Accordingly, we are withdrawing the Claims Group's settlement.  Also, 
by letter dated today, we are advising the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service of this action.

Sincerely yours,

/s/Seymour Efros
forRobert P. Murphy
General Counsel

B-261102

September 11, 1995

Charles R. Coffee, Director
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
Columbus Center
P.O. Box 182317
Columbus, OH  43218-2317

Dear Mr. Coffee:

This is in further regard to our Claims Group's Settlement Certificate 
Z-2868916, Feb. 28, 1994, which denied Mr. Mark J. Pitman's claim for 
reimbursement for relocation expenses incident to his change of 
residence from Hampton, New Hampshire, to Bowdoin, Maine, copy 
enclosed.  Mr. Pitman is a civilian employee of the Navy whose claim 
was forwarded to the Claims Groups by your office.  On March 17, 1995, 
Mr. Pitman requested reconsideration of the Claims Group settlement.

In the course of our review of the settlement, we learned that at all 
times relevant to his claim, Mr. Pitman was a member of a collective 
bargaining unit represented by the American Federation of Government 
Employees Local 2906 and that his claim was within the scope of 
matters subject to grievance and arbitration under that agreement.  
Had the Claims Group been cognizant of that information, it would not 
have adjudicated the claim.  The General Accounting Office may not 
settle claims that are subject to a negotiated grievance procedure.  
Cecil E. Riggs, et al., 71 Comp. Gen. 374 (1992); and 4 C.F.R.  
30.1(b) (1995).  This rule applies whether or not the claimant avails 
himself of the grievance procedure.  Paul D. Bills et al., B-260475, 
June 13, 1995.

Accordingly, we are withdrawing the Claims Group's settlement.  In a 
separate letter, dated today, copy enclosed, we are notifying Mr. 
Pitman of this action.

Sincerely yours,

/s/Seymour Efros
forRobert Murphy
General Counsel

Enclosures

B-261102

September 11, 1995

DIGEST

A Department of Defense employee appeals a Claims Group settlement 
denying his claim for reimbursement for relocation expenses incident 
to his change of residence from Hampton, New Hampshire, to Bowdoin, 
Maine.  The Claims Group had denied the claim on the grounds that the 
record showed that the employee had not changed permanent duty 
stations, but rather, had been reassigned to another position at the 
same duty station.  However, in the course of reviewing the 
settlement, it became apparent that the employee was subject to a 
collective bargaining agreement and that his claim was within the 
scope of matters subject to grievance and arbitration under that 
agreement.  Because the General Accounting Office may not settle 
claims subject to a negotiated grievance procedure, the Claims Group's 
settlement is withdrawn.  Cecil E. Riggs, 71 Comp. Gen. 374 (1992); 
Paul D. Bills, B-260475, June 13, 1995.