_________________________

                             October 18, 1996
                         _________________________


                             GSBCA 13716-RELO


                     In the Matter of Karl A. Hoglund


     Karl A. Hoglund, Fayetteville, PA, Claimant.

     Bobby A. Derrick, Acting Director for Finance and Accounting
Policy and Implementation, Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     At issue is claimant's request for reimbursement for temporary
housing and subsistence in connection with his transfer from
California to Pennsylvania.  Claimant sold his house some two
months prior to his transfer date and rented his home back from the
purchasers at $60 per day.  He seeks reimbursement in that amount
for the period of April 29 through June 21, 1994.  For this time
frame, claimant also seeks reimbursement for three meals per day at
$25 per meal for a family of five.  The agency denied the claim on
the grounds that the employee had not "vacated" his former
residence and that the meals were listed in identical amounts, were
not supported by receipts, and were not actual expenses.  The
agency did not deny claimant the expenses he incurred between
June 22 and July 10, 1994, which covered motels and meal expenses
in actual amounts after he arrived at his new duty station.

     For the reasons stated below, we sustain the agency's
determination and deny the claim.

                                Background

     On May 3, 1994, the Government issued a Request and
Authorization for DoD Civilian Permanent Duty Travel, Form DD 1614,
to claimant, Mr. Karl A. Hoglund, an electrical mechanic with the
Naval Aviation Depot, Naval Air Station, Alameda, California.  The
Government authorized temporary quarters subsistence expenses
(TQSE) of fifty-three days for claimant and his four dependents and
authorized time for the employee to seek a permanent residence in
his new duty station, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, as well as the
shipment of his household goods and temporary storage of those
goods for ninety days.

     Mr. Hoglund was required to report for duty in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania, on June 26, 1994.  He sold his home in California in
late April 1994, some two months before his scheduled reporting
date, and decided to rent his home from the purchasers effective
April 29, 1994, at a cost of $60 per day.  Claimant explained:

     I determined that the new owner would not be able to
     immediately occupy the house that I sold and "vacated." 
     I was able to get a reasonable rate for the time
     remaining before I reported to Letterkenny Army Depot
     ($60/day), and I paid the lower rate with the full
     expectation that I would be reimbursed for the "temporary
     quarters" as stated on my orders.

Letter from Karl A. Hoglund to U.S. General Accounting Office
(May 10, 1996).  According to Mr. Hoglund, temporary housing was
not available at the installation, and local hotels and motels had
listed daily rates of between $141.99 to $191.40.  Id.  Claimant
believed that renting his home qualified as temporary quarters
entitling him to reimbursement for that time period.  Id.

     With respect to meals, the Hoglunds purchased groceries and
prepared meals at their home to save costs for the fifty-three days
at issue.  Mr. Hoglund claims he divided the total cost by the
number of meals and this resulted in $25 per meal for five family
members.  Mr. Hoglund claims that it was more efficient to round
the cost down to $25 per meal than "to be penny precise and collect
a few more dollars."  Letter from Karl A. Hoglund to U.S. General
Accounting Office (May 10, 1996).  Claimant submitted no receipts
for meals during the period he rented back his residence.

                                Discussion

     The reimbursement of federal civilian employees' subsistence
expenses while occupying temporary quarters incident to a permanent
change of station is governed by the Federal Travel Regulations
(FTR), Chapter 2, Part 5.  In paragraph 2-5.2(c) the FTR provides
that temporary quarters "refers to lodging obtained from private or
commercial sources for the purpose of temporary occupancy after
vacating the residence occupied when the transfer was authorized." 
41 CFR  302-5.2(c) (1994).  The agency denied claimant
reimbursement for temporary quarters for the fifty-three days he
rented back his home because he and his family had not vacated the
residence.  The Comptroller General has consistently held that an
employee "vacates" a residence if the employee ceases to occupy it
for the purposes intended.  E.g., Drew A. Perry, B-235329 (Aug. 25,
1989).  The Comptroller General has reasoned that if the employee
continues to occupy the residence as the customary or usual place
of abode, the employee has not "vacated" the residence.  Id.
(citing Charles C. Werner, B-185696 (May 28, 1976)).

     Exceptions have been recognized when an employee objectively
intended to vacate the old residence, and his return to the old
residence was unanticipated.  For example, the Comptroller General
permitted reimbursement for five additional days after an employee
vacated his home because the employee was forced to return to his
former residence when the moving van broke down.  Beverly L.
Driver, B-181032 (Aug. 19, 1974).  There, the Comptroller General
recognized that the employee had "constructively vacated" his
former residence.

     In the case of Drew A. Perry, the employee remained in the
former residence for some twenty-seven days after selling that
residence and paid rent to the buyers for that period because of an
unforeseen medical emergency involving the employee's child.  The
employee argued that he intended to vacate the old residence before
his child became ill and that the sales contract provided clear
objective evidence of his intent to vacate earlier.  Nonetheless,
the Comptroller General denied reimbursement, concluding that the
employee neither actually nor constructively vacated the residence
so as to qualify for temporary quarters reimbursement.

     Similarly, in Michael J. Johnson, B-215708 (Oct. 11, 1984),
the Comptroller General denied reimbursement for TQSE to a
transferred employee whose family continued to occupy the former
residence on a rental basis after it was sold.  Again, the
Comptroller General reasoned that there was no objective evidence
that the family intended to vacate the residence while leasing it. 
Accord Edward Carlin, 67 Comp. Gen. 544 (1988); Gerald L. Modjeska,
56 Comp. Gen. 481 (1977); James P. Driscoll, B-198920 (Nov. 28,
1980).

     While it is unfortunate that the claimant here had the
expectation that he would be reimbursed for renting back his own
residence, the regulations and the Comptroller General decisions
make it clear that he is not entitled to reimbursement until he
actually or constructively vacated those premises.  Neither
situation is present here.  Thus, the claim is denied.

     Nor has the employee established that he is entitled to
reimbursement for meals for those fifty-three days during which he
occupied his home.  As explained above, he is not entitled to TQSE
because he did not vacate his former residence, and his family's
meals were not taken while occupying temporary quarters during this
time period.  41 CFR  302-5.4(a) (1994) ("Reimbursement shall be
made only for actual subsistence expenses incurred provided these
are incident to occupancy of temporary quarters and are reasonable
in amount.").


                                 Decision

     Mr. Hoglund's claim for relocation expenses is denied.



                                   __________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge