_________________________________

                        January 30, 1997
               __________________________________


                        GSBCA 13641-RELO


                In the Matter of HARRY T. TERAOKA


     Charles J. Lybarger of Kerns & Lybarger, Las Vegas, NV,
appearing for Claimant.

     David W. Neerman, Director for Staffing, Classification, and
Compensation, Human Resources, Policies and Programs, Department of
the Navy, Office of Civilian Personnel Management, Arlington, VA,
appearing for Department of Defense.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     In late 1989, Mr. Harry Teraoka was employed by the Navy as a
civilian electronics mechanic at Kaneohe Bay Marine Corps Air
Station in Honolulu, Hawaii.  On February 1, 1990, Mr. Teraoka was
transferred to a position with the Army and assigned to a new duty
station at Mainz Army Depot in Mainz, Germany.

     Before departing for Germany, Mr. Teraoka was told by the Navy
that he would have no "return rights" to a job at Kaneohe Bay once
his tour of duty in Germany was completed.  On March 16, 1990,
knowing that he had no right to return to Hawaii, Mr. Teraoka sold
his house in Hawaii, incurring various expenses in connection with
the sale.

     Soon after his arrival in Germany, Mr. Teraoka attempted to
file a claim for the expenses he incurred in selling his home in
Hawaii.  He was told that he could not file such a claim until his
return to the continental United States.  Upon completion of his
three-year tour of duty, Mr. Teraoka was transferred back to the
Navy and assigned to the naval shipyard in Long Beach, California. 
After returning to the United States, Mr. Teraoka filed a claim for
the expenses of selling his home in Hawaii.

     The Navy denied the claim because the sale of Mr. Teraoka's
home predated his orders to report to Long Beach, California.  A
review by the General Accounting Office (GAO) affirmed the Navy's
decision.  Harry T. Teraoka, Z-2869593 (Oct. 30, 1995).  Mr.
Teraoka's request that GAO reconsider its decision was transferred
to this Board.  As discussed below, we affirm GAO's decision to
deny the claim.

                           Discussion

     Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4)(A) (1988), and implementing
regulations, a federal employee is entitled to reimbursement of
the expenses of selling a residence when the Government transfers
him from a duty station within the United States to a foreign duty
station and then back to a duty station in the United States which
is different than the one from which he transferred overseas.  Such
reimbursement, however:

          shall not be allowed for any sale . . . that
          occurs prior to official notification that the
          employee's return to the United States would
          be to an official station other than the
          official station from which the employee was
          transferred when assigned to the foreign post
          of duty.

Id.

     Both the FTR and the JTR provide that the official
notification required will generally be in the form of a "change of
official station travel authorization."  41 CFR 302-6.1(g)(4); JTR 
C14000.  GAO has held that the required official notification can
also occur where the transferred employee is told prior to going
overseas that he definitely will not be returning to his old duty
station and an agency regulation would preclude him from doing so. 
See Robert M. Hooks, 72 Comp. Gen. 130 (1993); Timothy S. Haymend,
B-255822 (May 17, 1994).

     Here, Mr. Teraoka sold his home in Hawaii before receiving
official notification that he would be returning to a different
duty station upon his return from Germany.  Although Mr. Teraoka
had no right to return to Hawaii (i.e., no "return rights"), he was
not precluded from doing so.  Thus, until he received orders to
report to Long Beach, California, Mr. Teraoka had not been
notified, officially or otherwise, that he would not be returning
to Hawaii.  Since Mr. Teraoka sold his house prior to receiving
such notification, he is precluded by law from receiving
reimbursement for the expenses of the sale.

                            Decision

     The claim is DENIED.




                                   ____________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge