___________________________________

                        September 12, 1996
               ___________________________________


                         GSBCA 13675-RELO


                 In the Matter of RUSSELL STRACH


     Russell Strach, Boise, ID, Claimant.

     Don Cooper, Relocation Specialist, Western Administrative
Support Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Seattle, WA, appearing for the Department of Commerce.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Mr. Russell Strach, an employee of the United States
Department of Commerce, has asked for a review of the Department's
refusal to amend travel orders issued to him in conjunction with
his permanent change of official station.  Specifically he sought
to have his wife included in the authorization given for temporary
quarters and subsistence expenses.  The request to amend was denied
on the ground that Mr. Strach was not yet married to his wife at
the time he reported for duty at the new permanent duty station and
that, therefore, under the applicable regulation, his wife's
expenses were not covered.  Mr. Strach appeals this denial.  He
argues that he had intended to marry prior to reporting for duty
and would, in fact, have done so but for the extension of a
temporary detail which made this infeasible.  The agency's
determination that the requested amendment cannot be made is in
compliance with applicable regulation and is, therefore, sustained. 

     The facts regarding this case are as follows.  Mr. Strach is
employed by the Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.  On March 28, 1994, he was assigned to a 120 day
temporary duty detail to open a field office for the National
Marine Fisheries Service in Boise, Idaho.  At the time of this
assignment, his official duty station was at Portland, Oregon.  

     In May 1994, Mr. Strach and his fiancee selected August 6,
1994, as their wedding date.  By that date, they assumed Mr. Strach
would have returned from his temporary detail in Boise.  This,
however, was not to be.  On July 14, 1994, Mr. Strach was notified
that he had been selected for a permanent position in the Boise
field office effective August 8.  His temporary detail was
thereafter extended and, on July 27, 1994, new travel orders were
issued authorizing him to move from his home in Aloha, Oregon, to
his new permanent duty station in Boise, Idaho.  In view of these
developments, Mr. Strach and his fiancee changed their wedding date
from August 6 to September 3.  

     Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), when a federal
employee is transferred from one permanent work station to another
and the two stations are at least ten miles apart, the Government
will pay reasonable transportation and subsistence costs associated
with the transfer for the federal employee and his or her immediate
family.  In this case, the Department of Commerce refused to amend
Mr. Strach's orders to include his fiancee for the very basic
reason that Section 302-1(f) of the FTR defines "immediate family"
as members of the employee's household "at the time he/she reports
for duty at the new permanent duty station . . . ."

     Mr. Strach points out that, at the time his travel orders were
issued in late July, he was told that he could later amend his
request for travel authorization and moving expenses to include his
wife after their marriage.  His agency does not deny that the
claimant received this advice but has subsequently recognized that
it was incorrect.  The relocation specialist who declined to
approve the requested amendment is nevertheless sympathetic to the
claimant.  He encouraged Mr. Strach to appeal the denial and, in
fact, forwarded the case on behalf of the claimant to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) for review.  

     In presenting Mr. Strach's claim for special consideration,
the agency relocation specialist refers to three unpublished
decisions of the Comptroller General involving somewhat similar
facts.  All of these cases involve a request for travel expenses
for children who, for one or another reason, were not considered to
be part of the immediate family of the employee at the time he
reported to his new permanent station.  In one case, the employee's
child was not yet born.  Lawrence Lindner, B-191230 (Apr. 24,
1978).  In the other two cases, James H. Woods, B-206456 (Mar. 25,
1983), and Edward J. Schlachter, B-206654 (Dec. 6, 1982), the
children were not with the employee at the time he reported for
duty and, in addition, the employee did not have legal custody of
them at that time.  

     In all three cases cited to us, the claims for travel expenses
for the children were, in fact, denied.  In denying the claims,
however, the Comptroller General recommended that the General
Services Administration consider amending the FTR to include a
regulatory exception covering newly acquired family members.  The
relocation specialist for the Department of Commerce, in citing to
these cases, states that, to date, the FTR remains unchanged in
this regard and that it is time to revisit this situation.  

     The cases to which the relocation specialist refers us are
instructive but not in any way that aids the claimant.  While they
may evince sympathy for the claimant and suggest that a change in
the regulation would be appropriate, they nonetheless recognize
that under the FTR, as it actually reads, no relief is available. 
In the Lindner opinion, for example, GAO noted that, while there is
no definition of the term "immediate family" in the applicable
statute, there is one in the FTR which has the force and effect of
law and cannot, therefore, be waived. 

     We find the rationale in these cases involving children no
less applicable to the situation here, where the immediate family
of the employee is expanded to include a spouse but after the
employee has reported to his new permanent station.  The argument
is made that Mrs. Strach would have been part of the claimant's
immediate family on August 8 had it not been for the further
extension of the claimant's temporary detail.  In this case, such
an argument is of no use to the claimant.  This claim must be
decided on the facts as they are -- not as they might have been. 
It is clear and beyond dispute that on August 8, the date on which
Mr. Strach was to officially report to his new permanent station,
his wife was not part of his immediate family.  On this fact alone,
the claimant is not entitled to recover any travel or subsistence
expenses his future wife may have incurred.  The determination of
the Department of Commerce is, therefore, correct.    



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge