______________

                              March 31, 1997
                              ______________


                             GSBCA 13677-RELO


                     In the Matter of CHARLES M. FLOYD


    Charles M. Floyd, Bowling Green, VA, Claimant.

    Stephen G. Scott, Director, Human Resources Office, Charleston
Naval Shipyard, Charleston, SC, appearing for Department of
Defense.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

    The claimant, Charles M. Floyd, a civilian employee of the
Department of Defense, changed permanent duty stations.  The agency
authorized reimbursement of temporary quarters subsistence expenses
(TQSE) for up to sixty days, but denied the claimant's request for
an extension.  The claimant here contests that determination not to
extend the period for reimbursement.  The submissions reveal no
violation by the agency in denying the request.  The claimant is
not entitled to the reimbursement he seeks.

    Mr. Floyd states that he applied for the extension for two
reasons: he was having a home built, with closing set for after the
TQSE period expired, and, for various reasons, there was inadequate
housing in the new duty area.  He contends that each reason allows
for an extension.  He contends that because the agency did not
budget for extensions, they granted but few, and improperly denied
his request.  Mr. Floyd has submitted a statement from a real
estate broker, which specifies: "Due to the lack of suitable houses
in the area [the Floyds] needed to live, we could not find an
acceptable existing house for them, therefore they had to build a
new house."

    In denying the request for an extension, the agency stated, in
part: "Despite your claims, a representative from the Housing
Office . . . has provided information indicating that there is no
shortage of housing in the commuting area at your new duty station. 
We have been advised that houses and apartments are available in
the commuting area within a wide price range."  The agency also
noted that the claimant took a "house-hunting trip," prior to
reporting to the new duty station--an action which serves as a
basis to reduce or avoid the TQSE allowance.  JTR C13004-B.1.

    Consistent with statute, 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(3) (1994), the
Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which are applicable to the
claimant, specify that an employee is not automatically entitled to
reimbursement of TQSE for any given period for changing permanent
duty stations.  An agency will authorize reimbursement, for a
period not to exceed sixty days, "only as an expedient and only for
the period of time that occupancy of temporary quarters is actually
necessary.  The administrative determination as to whether the
occupancy of temporary quarters is necessary and the length of time
for occupancy shall be made on an individual-case basis."  JTR
C13004-A.1 (initial period of TQSE allowance).  An extension of the
TQSE period beyond the initial sixty days is also not automatic. 
While the same considerations apply to the determination regarding
an extension, as for the initial TQSE period, in order to authorize
an extension, the agency must determine that there are compelling
reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters, which
are due to circumstances occurring during the initial sixty-day
period and which are beyond the control of the claimant and
acceptable to the Department of Defense component.  Moreover,
"authorization to extend the temporary quarters period and the
number of days authorized will be held to a minimum."  JTR 13004-
A.2 (additional period of temporary quarters).

    The submissions do not demonstrate any impropriety in the
agency conclusion that the circumstances do not warrant an
extension of the TQSE period beyond the initial sixty days. 
Accordingly, the claimant is not entitled to recover the amount he
seeks.



                                    ____________________________
                                         JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                         Board Judge