________________________________________

                              October 9, 1996
                 ________________________________________


                             GSBCA 13668-RELO


                    In the Matter of HARLAN C. THIEL   


     Harlan C. Thiel, San Francisco, CA, Claimant.

     Caroline Peterson, Chief, Finance Section, Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, appearing for
Department of Veterans Affairs.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Mr. Harlan C. Thiel is an employee of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (DVA) who relocated from Danville, California to
San Francisco, California and who sold his house in Danville.  He
seeks reimbursement, as relocation expenses, for brokerage
commission totaling $17,370, which he argues he paid in the sale of
that house.  DVA disallowed half of Mr. Thiel's claim for the
brokerage commission, reasoning that Mr. Thiel, in fact, only
incurred half of that amount--$8,685.  We agree with DVA; Mr. Thiel
is entitled to reimbursement only for the $8,685 expense he
actually paid as a brokerage commission.  We also agree with DVA
that Mr. Thiel is not entitled to reimbursement of $8,922.64 for
certain other miscellaneous expenses.

     According to the settlement statement, Mr. Thiel sold his
house in Danville for $280,815.  That sheet lists "commission paid
at settlement" as $8,685.  Mr. Thiel, however, maintains that there
was a hidden bargain behind the stated transaction.  As Mr. Thiel
explains it, the buyer of Mr. Thiel's house was a real estate
broker.  The combined commission of the selling broker and the
broker/buyer was actually $17,370, which is six percent of
$289,500.  The broker/buyer deducted his share of the commission
from the selling price of the house.  Thus, says Mr. Thiel, the
selling price of the house was reduced to $280,815.  

     Statute provides that an agency may make funds available for
reimbursement of its employee's relocation expenses.  Those
expenses include the sale of the residence of the employee at the
old station when the expenses are "required to be paid by him."  5
U.S.C.  5724a(4)(A) (1994).  Reimbursement for brokerage fees,
however, may not exceed those customarily charged in the locality
where the residence is located.  Id.   

     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) echoes the statutory
requirement: "The Government shall reimburse an employee for
expenses required to be paid by him/her in connection with the sale
of one residence at his/her old official station."  41 CFR 302-6.1
(1994).  Similarly, the FTR provides that "An employee shall be
reimbursed only for expenses actually incurred and paid by the
employee."  41 CFR 302-6.1(f). 

     "Pay" means "to satisfy (someone) for services rendered or
property delivered," or "to give in return for goods and services." 
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1986).  "Incur" means
"to become liable or subject to."  Id.  Here, the settlement sheet
shows that Mr. Thiel--using a broker--sold his house for $280,815
and paid his broker $8,685 for the broker's services.  He did not
sell his house for $289,500 and was not charged a brokerage fee of
$17,370.  Mr. Thiel, therefore, never owed $17,370 to his broker. 
Rather, Mr. Thiel owed $8,685, which was the extent of Mr. Thiel's
liability and the amount he paid. 

     In the context of this claim, the meaning of the statutory and
regulatory provisions quoted above is clear.  The Government will
reimburse its employees for those reimbursable housing relocation
expenses for the bargain that was made.  The Government is not
authorized to reimburse its employees for the hypothetical expenses
of the bargain that the parties may have contemplated, but did not
make.  Mr. Thiel's claim lacks merit.  

     Mr. Thiel also sought reimbursement of $8,922.64 for credit to
the buyer for landscaping work, termite work, home protection plan,
seller's coverage, repairs resulting from home inspection, and
smoke detectors.  The FTR provides that operations and maintenance
costs and insurance against loss or damage of property are non-
reimbursable items.  41 CFR 302-6.2(d)(2)(i), (iv)(1994).  Mr.
Thiel, as claimant, has the burden of establishing his entitlement
in these proceedings, Board Rule 401; he has failed to demonstrate
that these expenses are reimbursable under the FTR.  Mr. Thiel is
not entitled to reimbursement for the items claimed.     


       

                              _________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge