______________________ February 6, 1997 ______________________ GSBCA 13772-RELO In the Matter of ZANJALA T. SAUNDERS Zanjala T. Saunders, Baltimore, MD, Claimant. David Tarr, Division of Travel Management, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, appearing for Social Security Administration. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, Zanjala T. Saunders, a typing secretary with the Social Security Administration (SSA), asks for reconsideration of an opinion rendered by a senior staff attorney of the General Accounting Office (GAO). The opinion was rendered in response to a request the agency anticipated would be filed by Ms. Saunders for relocation expenses incurred in conjunction with a permanent change of station. The original GAO opinion recommended payment of Ms. Saunders' "en route" travel expenses and expenses associated with the transportation and temporary storage of her household goods. The opinion, however, recommended against payment of her claim for temporary quarters subsistence expense (TQSE). Zanjala T. Sanders, Z-2869862 (Dec. 8, 1995). It is this denial of TQSE which claimant asks us to reconsider. On review of the record now before us, we conclude that Ms. Saunders is entitled to payment of TQSE -- not for the entire period claimed, but only for the period actually authorized by the SSA. The facts of this case are as follows. Ms. Saunders was reassigned from the SSA Teleservice Center in Baltimore to SSA's District Office in Wheaton, Maryland, effective October 2, 1994. There is no indication travel orders were issued at that time. Rather, her reassignment was documented by a Standard Form 50 (Notification of Personnel Action). For the first four months of employment at Wheaton, Ms. Saunders commuted on a daily basis from the residence in Baltimore where she had been living while working at her old duty station. As a single parent with two children, Ms. Saunders soon found this arrangement less than satisfactory. By December, she was convinced that it would be best for her to relocate with her children to an area closer to Wheaton. She, therefore, requested authorization to relocate. The agency advises us that on December 22, 1994, Ms. Saunders was issued travel orders authorizing: (1) "en route" travel, (2) a miscellaneous expense allowance, (3) shipment and up to 90 days storage of household goods, and (4) closing costs for the purchase of a residence at the new duty station. The travel order expressly provided: "Travel order is to be amended if selected relocation services differ or are rejected." The travel order listed February 2, 1995, as the approximate date of departure. Before relocating to the Wheaton area, Ms. Saunders contacted SSA's Division of Travel Management (DTM) in Baltimore to determine if her travel orders could be amended to provide for temporary quarters. The DTM official with whom she spoke pointed out that this might not be possible under the applicable regulations. Eventually, however, on February 16, 1995, the agency's regional office in Philadelphia, after conferring with this same DTM official, amended Ms. Saunders' travel orders to provide for temporary quarters not to exceed 30 days. On March 3, Ms. Saunders' household goods were moved from her residence in Baltimore and placed in temporary storage. On March 14, she and her children moved to temporary quarters near Wheaton. Ms. Saunders' search for permanent housing in the Wheaton area did not go well. She writes that her efforts to find permanent housing were "almost like a second job." Not wishing to take time off from work, she explains that she searched on evenings and weekends. At one point, she located what appeared to be suitable permanent quarters in the area. She submitted a contract for purchase. Owing to an error in the listing, however, the house was withdrawn from the market and her proposed contract was not considered. Claimant contends that on receiving authorization for temporary quarters, she was left with the understanding that the authorization was for 120 days. She states that her supervisor was aware that she was in temporary quarters but that she was not told by him or anyone else of the need to request extensions beyond the first thirty-day period. Somewhat unexpectedly, therefore, on June 13, after she had been in temporary quarters for ninety-one days, she was advised by her supervisor that he had been instructed to advise her to "Get out of Temporary Quarters, NOW." By memorandum of the same date to her supervisor, Ms. Saunders formally requested an extension of her TQSE from April 12 to July 23. Attached to the request was a second memorandum explaining in some detail why she had failed to request the extension sooner. No immediate action was taken on Ms. Saunders' request. She states that during that time, her supervisor suggested she consider quarters closer to Baltimore since she had supportive family there. In fact, on July 1, Ms. Saunders vacated her temporary quarters near Wheaton and returned to the Baltimore area. The record is unclear as to where she and her children moved at this point. Presumably the new arrangements were temporary, for she did not call for her household furnishings until over two months later. On returning to the Baltimore area in early July, however, she resumed commuting on a daily basis to her work place at Wheaton. On July 13, Ms. Saunders was advised that, although amended travel orders has not yet been "cut," the Philadelphia regional office had approved her request for an extension of TQSE. The extension was granted, but "not to exceed 120 days or June 17, 1995, whichever comes first." It, therefore, must have come as something of a surprise to Ms. Saunders when she was subsequently advised by letter dated August 3, from the assistant regional commissioner for field operations, that her request for an extension of TQSE was denied. The regional commissioner, however, apparently experienced a change of heart, for on August 23, he signed an amendment to Ms. Saunders' travel orders confirming the authorization of TQSE up to June 17, 1995. During the month of August, Ms. Saunders prepared a voucher package which sought a total of $13,102.93. This included $13,087.53 for documented TQSE for the period of March 14 to June 30, and $15.40 for travel expenses. Her package, dated August 10, was apparently submitted informally, by way of facsimile (fax), for an advance audit by DTM. By this time, claimant was pressing for expedited processing. She had paid most of her expenses while in temporary quarters using a credit card. She was now receiving repeated demands for payment. Notwithstanding the issuance of the amended travel orders on August 23, the voucher package was returned to Ms. Saunders by the DTM Director. In a cover letter dated September 5, he pointed out that, because Ms. Saunders had ultimately returned to the Baltimore area, she had not relocated at all. She, therefore, in his opinion, was entitled to no relocation benefits. In anticipation of an objection from Ms. Saunders, and perhaps others in the agency, the DTM Director, by letter dated November 20, sought the opinion of GAO on the merits of her claim. Shortly thereafter, by letter dated December 1, Ms. Saunders formally requested that the agency reconsider its denial of her claim. By letter dated December 8, a senior adjudicator in the GAO's Claims Group responded to the DTM Director's letter of November 20. Based upon the limited record provided, GAO concluded that Ms. Saunders was entitled to her travel expenses and to the cost of transporting and temporarily storing her household goods. The opinion, however, recommended against the payment of TQSE. By letter dated January 25, 1996, the DTM Director provided Ms. Saunders with a copy of the GAO reply. In addition, he advised her that request for reimbursement of travel expenses was granted and that the agency would pay for the transportation of her household goods. In accordance with the GAO recommendation, however, her claim for TQSE was again denied. By letter dated January 26, 1996, Ms. Saunders asked that GAO reconsider its recommendation that the TQSE not be paid. In docketing this request for reconsideration, GAO noted that a complete voucher package had yet to be submitted formally to SSA. Claimant was directed to do so promptly so that the agency could make a final determination. This was done with a voucher submission dated March 26, 1996. The total amount sought by claimant with this submission was $1,354.34 more than the original claim faxed to DTM for preliminary audit during the previous month of August. The increase represented a claim for TQSE beyond June 30 to July 13. In its formal response to Ms. Saunders' appeal to GAO, SSA confirmed receipt of her revised claim and again reaffirmed its decision not to reimburse Ms. Saunders for any TQSE. Discussion Claimant requests that we reconsider only that part of the GAO opinion of December 8, 1995, which recommends that the agency not pay her any TQSE. We, therefore, restrict our comments here to that portion of the opinion. We find it particularly significant that the staff attorney's recommendation not to pay TQSE was not based on the agency's rationale that no relocation has taken place. That rationale was implicitly rejected when GAO concluded that Ms. Saunders appeared to be entitled to the relocation benefit of transporting and temporarily storing household goods. GAO was apparently of the opinion that Ms. Saunders' ultimate return to Baltimore did not automatically render her ineligible for relocation allowances. We agree. Ms. Saunders and her family did undertake to relocate to the Wheaton area. She vacated her residence in Baltimore. She had her household goods moved into temporary storage. Pursuant to agency authorization, she actually moved with her two young children into temporary quarters closer to her new duty station. While in temporary quarters, she undertook a conscientious, but unfortunately unsuccessful, search for permanent quarters closer to her new duty station. The quarters she ultimately was required to accept were within daily commuting distance of her new duty station. The disappointing fact that these quarters are considerably less than what was desired or expected, does not expunge the reality of two obviously taxing moves. The GAO opinion claimant asks us to reconsider recommends against payment of TQSE for two reasons altogether different from that relied on by the agency. The first reason is that the authorization of TQSE constituted an improper amendment to Ms. Saunders' travel orders. The second reason is that the agency's authorization of TQSE was in violation of the so called forty-mile rule as set out in the Federal Travel Regulation. We discuss each reason in turn. The GAO opinion notes that TQSE was not authorized in Ms. Saunders' original travel orders. The opinion goes on to state: The well-established rule is that the legal rights and liabilities in regard to travel allowances vest as and when travel is performed under competent orders, and that such orders may not be revoked or modified retroactively so as to increase or decrease the rights and benefits which have become fixed under the applicable statutes and regulations. GAO is correct that TQSE was not authorized in Ms. Saunders' original travel orders. Based on the record of this case, however, as supplemented by the claimant and the agency, it is now clear that her travel orders were amended to include TQSE on February 16, well in advance of the transport and storage of her household goods and of her actual move in March. The rule cited by GAO, therefore, is inapplicable to the situation presented in this case. Certainly agency officials are free to amend travel orders prior to the start of an employee's travel or move. Neither do we read the rule as prohibiting further amendment of travel orders to reflect authorized extensions of TQSE or storage of household goods. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) expressly provides that the extension of a temporary quarters period should be authorized only where the need for additional time arises from circumstances occurring during the initial period. 41 CFR 305-5.2(a)(2) (1996). Orders issued before the start of the first period for TQ, therefore, will not provide for subsequent extensions but, nevertheless, can be amended to reflect these extensions as the agency deems fit. The second reason cited by GAO in support of its recommendation that TQSE not be paid to Ms. Saunders is found in Section 302-5.2(h) of the FTR. Under this provision, employees are not entitled to TQSE if the distance between the new official station and old residence is not more than forty miles greater than the distance between the old residence and the old official station. Using published road maps, GAO concluded that the distance between Baltimore and Wheaton, Maryland ranges from thirty-one to thirty-seven miles (depending on the map and route). It, therefore, concluded that "it seems unlikely" that this forty- mile rule had been met. Again, given the record now before us, it is clear that the requirement of FTR 302-5.2(h) was carefully considered by the SSA. We are told that it was among the first issues raised by the DTM representative with whom Ms. Saunders conferred when she sought to have her orders amended to provide for temporary quarters. To resolve the issue, the agency's district office in Wheaton submitted documentation to the Philadelphia regional office to establish that Ms. Saunders met the TQ "mileage test." Based on these representations, the travel orders were amended to authorize temporary quarters. The agency is obviously very much aware of the requirement in question and has not repudiated its earlier determination that the requirement has been met in this case. The local district office is in possession of the precise information necessary to make this determination and we consider it far more reliable than the conclusion reached by GAO using different routes and maps. Accordingly, we reject this second reason for not paying TQSE as unsupported by the record. Having found cause to reject the two reasons offered by GAO for not paying TQSE to Ms. Saunders, and being unaware of any valid reason to withhold payment, we conclude, on reconsideration, that pursuant to 41 CFR 302-5, she is entitled to this relocation benefit as well. We note, however, that Ms. Saunders seeks payment for a period beyond June 17, the final date for her authorized TQSE. The record is unclear as to why the agency, in granting her request, selected this date. It is not the date on which she vacated her temporary quarters nor is it the terminal date she originally requested. This is a matter, however, which the regulations leave to the discretion of the agency. We, therefore, find Ms. Saunders entitled to TQSE, but only for the period actually authorized by the agency, namely, up to and including June 17, 1995. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge