May 15, 1998
Appeal of
BETTY C. TWEET
Under Contract No. HCR 59366
PSBCA No. 4081
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Betty C. Tweet
Marvin D. Tweet
P. O. Box 1396
Glendive, MT 59330-1396
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Samuel J. Schmidt, Esq.
Salt Lake City Office
United States Postal Service
448 East 6400 South, Suite 450
Salt Lake City, UT 84107-7591
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellant has submitted a “Response to Opinion of the Board on Motion for Reconsideration” in which she requests that the Board reconsider for the second time the Board’s Opinion of November 13, 1997. In an Opinion of the Board on Motion for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 1998, we reviewed our Opinion of November 13, 1997, and reaffirmed the decision to deny Appellant’s appeal.
There is no provision in the Board’s rules for reconsidering a decision on motion for reconsideration. Lawrence D. Bane, PSBCA Nos. 1440 & 1491, 86-3 BCA ¶ 19,276. Although in compelling circumstances the Board may exercise its discretion to revisit a reconsideration decision, see Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 4068 (February 20, 1998), Appellant’s repetition of the same arguments she made in her appeal and again in her original Motion for Reconsideration does not merit the exercise of such discretion.
Appellant also raises objections to the Board's failure to hold a conference with the parties to clarify the issues in dispute. The parties were requested by the Board to suggest a convenient location and date for an oral hearing if they wanted that option, but they opted to submit their case on the record without an oral hearing. Both parties subsequently made written submissions in support of their positions. That Appellant now believes the Board would have better understood and relied on her evidence had she taken advantage of the opportunity for an oral presentation, is not a basis for granting reconsideration. See E. Gerald Hanes, PSBCA No. 3082, 93-1 BCA ¶ 25,553.
If, as Appellant now states, she believed the declarations of Respondent’s witnesses to have been untruthful, or otherwise in error, she should have filed rebuttal evidence, as allowed by the Board’s Order of July 28, 1997[1]. Appellant did
not submit any affidavits or declarations under penalty of perjury to support her factual allegations or to refute the sworn declarations of Respondent’s witnesses.
Appellant’s request for reconsideration of the Board’s earlier decision on motion for reconsideration is denied[2].
William K. Mahn
Administrative Judge
Board Member
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
[1] Appellant did file a Supplemental Appeal File which included a PS form 5399, Contract Routes Performance Record. Appellant contends in this motion that this document establishes alleged false statements made by Respondent’s declarants. However, there is nothing in the information contained in this form that refutes the statements made by Respondent’s declarants. (Declaration of Burley and Krassner; Appellant’s Supplemental Appeal File).
[2] In her motion Appellant asks the Board to state her appeal rights. Under the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, as amended, a party may appeal an adverse decision of a board of contract appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 120 days after receipt of a copy of the board's decision. 41 U.S.C. §607(g)(1)(A)&(B).