________________________________

                             February 28, 1997
                     ________________________________


                             GSBCA 13662-RELO


                    In the Matter of FRANK A. STERBENZ


     Frank A. Sterbenz, Sheridan, WY, Claimant.

     Simeon Kirksey, Chief, Travel Section, Austin Finance Center,
Department of Veterans Affairs, Austin TX, appearing for the
Department of Veterans Affairs.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Frank A. Sterbenz, an employee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), seeks additional reimbursement of real
estate expenses incurred in connection with his permanent change of
station (PCS) to Sheridan, Wyoming.  

     Upon moving to Wyoming, claimant purchased a residence
situated on 61.26 acres of land.  The number of acres purchased
exceeded the required lot size, of thirty-five acres, for the area. 
The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that the "employee
shall be limited to pro rata reimbursement when he/she sells or
purchases land in excess of that which reasonably relates to the
residence site."  41 CFR 302-6.1(f)(2)(ii) (1995).  The VA
determined that the value of the homestead -- the house and thirty-
five acres -- constituted 78.5 percent of the total purchase price
and, pursuant to the FTR, reduced the total eligible expenses
claimed for reimbursement by 21.5 percent.  

     In a letter seeking a ruling from the General Accounting
Office, Mr. Sterbenz does not contest the pro rata reduction of
the claimed expenses in principle, but does argue that some of the
expenses claimed would have been the same no matter how many acres
were purchased and thus should have been reimbursed in full.  In
particular, he avers that the appraiser charged him a standard fee
of $300 which is not pegged to the value or acreage of the property
purchased.  He also states that the well and septic inspection fee
of $130, the recording fee of $32, and the Credit Bureau fee of
$39.50 were constant amounts and should have been fully reimbursed
as well.  These amounts, totalling $501.50, were reduced by $107.82
as a result of the proration of real estate expenses.  Mr. Sterbenz
thus seeks recovery of the amount of $107.82.

     In an early decision addressing the general considerations for
applying the proration rule set forth in the applicable regulation,
the Comptroller General recognized that the rule requires a
determination of how much land "reasonably relates to the residence
site" and how much land is "in excess."  This determination should
initially be made by the agency to which the claim is submitted
based on the prevailing and customary practices in the locality of
the official duty station.  54 Comp. Gen. 597, 598 (1975).  As
noted, this initial determination has not been challenged here. 
With respect to the proration of expenses, however, the Comptroller
General further observed that where services or charges are based
on a flat fee, the reimbursable expenses should be reimbursed in
toto, providing the fee or charge is reasonable and in line with
charges for similar services in that locality.  Id. at 599; accord
Dikran Hazirjian, B-213385 (Mar. 23, 1984); 55 Comp. Gen. 747
(1976).

     In its response to GAO's request for the agency position on
this claim, the VA stated that to the extent that documentation can
be provided to show that the items questioned by Mr. Sterbenz are
based on a flat rate basis, regardless of site size, the agency
will fully reimburse, rather than prorate, such expenses.  The
applicable law supports full payment of those charges which were
assessed as flat rates and not linked to the sale price of the
property.  Although the record does not contain such documentation,
it should not be difficult for claimant to obtain appropriate
letters or other information demonstrating the flat rate nature of
these charges.  Since the VA states that it will pay the amounts
claimed upon receipt of such documentation, we return this matter
to the claimant and agency to proceed accordingly.    





                                        __________________________
                                        CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                        Board Judge