_______________ June 13, 1997 _______________ GSBCA 13651-RELO In the Matter of PERRY D. LANE Perry D. Lane, Boonville, MO, Claimant. William T. Shay, Acting State Director, Rural Economic and Community Development, Columbia, MO, appearing for Department of Agriculture. NEILL, Board Judge. Mr. Perry D. Lane, an employee of the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), seeks review of an agency determination that he is not entitled to reimbursement of relocation costs. For the reasons set out below, we deny his claim. Background In 1991, claimant was employed in the USDA's office in Fayette, Missouri. In September of that year, he successfully applied for a new position. As a result, he was transferred from Fayette to the agency office in Marshall, Missouri. The effective date of his reassignment was September 8, 1991. While Mr. Lane was working in the agency's Fayette office, his residence was in Boonville, Missouri. Boonville is approximately fifteen miles from Fayette. On being transferred to Marshall, Mr. Lane remained in his residence at Boonville. His new duty station in Marshall was approximately thirty-seven miles from his residence in Boonville. Although claimant was advised that the Government would assist him in the cost of relocating to Marshall, he remained a resident of Boonville and did not relocate. Towards the conclusion of the two year period established under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) for claiming relocation benefits, he requested that the period be extended for an additional year. He explained that, to date, he had been unable to find affordable housing at Marshall. The request was granted. Mr. Lane was given until September 8, 1994, to file any claims for the cost of relocating from Boonville to Marshall. On March 6, 1994, Mr. Lane was again transferred. This time his new duty station was located in Columbia, Missouri. The agency office in Columbia is over ten miles from the Marshall office. However, compared to the Marshall office, the Columbia office is considerably closer to Mr. Lane's home in Boonville. The Columbia office is approximately twenty-three miles from his home in Boonville. On being transferred to Columbia, Mr. Lane asked the agency to assist him in relocating to Columbia. In denying the request, the agency referred to a provision in the FTR which states that a relocation will not be considered as incident to a new change in official duty station if the one-way commuting distance from the old residence to the new duty station is not at least ten miles greater than the distance from the old residence to the former duty station. As noted, in this case, the distance from Mr. Lane's home to the new duty station was actually less than that to the old duty station. Although claimant is aware of this restriction in the FTR, he nonetheless has requested that an exception be made in his case since the agency was spared the costs of relocating him when he was transferred from Fayette to the agency office in Marshall. The agency's position remains unchanged. Mr. Lane, therefore, has asked the General Accounting Office to review the agency's denial of his request. Discussion The specific provision of the FTR on which the agency relies in this case reads as follows: Ordinarily, a relocation of residence shall not be considered as incident to a change of official station unless the one-way commuting distance from the old residence to the new official station is at least 10 miles greater than from the old residence to the old official station. Even then, circumstances surrounding a particular case (e.g., relative commuting time) may suggest that the move of residence was not incident to the change of official station. 41 CFR 302-1.7(a) (1996). The wording of the regulation is certainly clear. It also serves to underscore the critical and fundamental fact that an agency's willingness to assist an employee with relocation costs incident to a transfer is invariably linked to the specific location of the old work station, the new work station, and the employee's residence. The commitment to reimburse for certain costs of relocating in conjunction with one transfer cannot simply be applied to a different transfer involving a different combination of locations. Each case stands or falls on the basis of its own particular facts. In claimant's case, we are confronted with two separate and distinct transfers. The first, from the agency office in Fayette to the agency office in Marshall, took place on September 8, 1991. The agency concluded that Mr. Lane was entitled to certain relocation costs and advised him of this fact. Indeed, his period of entitlement was extended, at his request, from two to three years. As a matter of record, however, he never relocated from Boonville to Marshall. Hence, he incurred no costs within the maximum three-year period for which he might have been reimbursed. On March 6, 1994, Mr. Marshall was transferred to the agency office in Columbia. In leaving his work station at Marshall, he obviously left behind any prospect of relocating to that work station. His decision not to relocate to Marshall, whatever the reason for it may have been, nets him nothing so far as reimbursements for relocation in conjunction with his latest transfer are concerned. Whether he is entitled to these costs on the occasion of the most recent transfer depends on the specific locations involved. The agency, bearing in mind this data, has concluded that Mr. Lane is not entitled to relocation costs because relocation in this case cannot be considered incident to the new transfer. The conclusion is based on the plain fact that the one-way commuting distance from his home to the new work station is less than the one-way commuting distance from his home to his old workstation. The agency's analysis is sound and in keeping with guidance set out in FTR 302-1.7(a) (1996). We see no reason to disturb it. Mr. Lane's claim for relocation costs as a result of his transfer to Columbia is, therefore, denied. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge