_________________________

                               May 16, 1997
                         _________________________



                             GSBCA 13811-RELO


                     In the Matter of PAUL E. MARSHALL


     Paul E. Marshall, Rhome, TX, Claimant.

     Capt. Andrew L. Fechhelm, Office of Counsel - Eastern
Operations, Defense Contract Management Command, Defense Logistics
Agency, Ft. Belvoir, VA, appearing for Department of Defense.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Paul E. Marshall, a quality assurance specialist
employed by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), accepted a lateral
transfer from California to the Dallas, Texas area.  Payment of
relocation expenses was authorized in connection with this
transfer. Mr. Marshall requested relocation assistance in
connection with the sale of his mobile home in California.  The
services were initially approved, but, because the residence to be
sold was not located on property owned by claimant, the requested
assistance was subsequently withdrawn.  Mr. Marshall asserts that
he should be reimbursed the amount he owes on the mobile home and
money he spent in attempting to buy a new home in Texas.  For the
reasons stated, there is no basis to allow this claim.

                                Background

     In 1995, while claimant was employed by DLA in central
California, an identical agency position became available in Texas. 
The position was advertised as no PCS (permanent change of station)
funds available.  Claimant applied for and was selected to fill the
vacancy.  The selecting official requested PCS funds be made
available at the time he selected claimant for the position. 
Claimant agreed to accept the lateral transfer and responded to the
agency's PCS questionnaire in early October 1995.  Initially, he
stated that he owned a home and planned to sell it.  Upon receiving
this information the agency prepared relocation travel orders
authorizing miscellaneous and real estate transaction expenses as
provided by the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR).   

     Mr. Marshall officially accepted the position in Texas on
October 13, 1995.  The orders were forwarded to the commanding
officer who  approved the transfer and authorized PCS funding on
November 27, 1995.  An order was issued on November 28, 1995,
setting forth an enter-on-duty date of January 14, 1996, and a
report date of January 20, 1996.  

     On December 5, 1996, claimant submitted a request for
relocation services in accordance with the JTR, chapter 15,
explaining that while he had known of the impending move for
several months he was told not to place his home on the market
until official orders were issued.  Claimant's request stated that
the market for home sales in his locality is severely depressed,
particularly for mobile homes, and that the 45 day period before
his report date would be insufficient to sell the home in
California.  In response to his request, the agency determined that
claimant would be permitted to apply for the relocation services
program and made additional funding available for its use.

     On January 4, 1996, DLA issued an amended travel authorization
form stating that Mr. Marshall was authorized to use relocation
services in lieu of reimbursement of real estate expenses.  The
next day, claimant submitted a relocation services request form. 
In filling out the form he checked boxes showing that his property
was a mobile home and that he did not own the land it was on.  On
the facsimile cover sheet, claimant stated that he estimated the
value of his home to be $54,000, that he presently owed some 
$48,000; and that given the depressed housing market in his
locality, the house would probably sell for no more than $20,000,
if it could be sold at all.  Claimant's form was processed, funds
were certified for the use of relocation services, and the
paperwork was forwarded to the agency representative for relocation
services on February 12, 1996.  

     DLA does not directly contract for relocation services.  At
the time of Mr. Marshall's PCS, DLA had an agreement with the Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) under which the COE contracted with
private relocation companies to provide relocation services for DLA
employees.  The services provide for the purchase of the
transferring employee's house for resale.  The relocation company
charges the Corps of Engineers an administrative fee for its
services, which is repaid by DLA.  DLA states that it is bound by
the COE's procedures and by the terms of the agreement between the
COE and the relocation services contractor.

     The contract between the Corps of Engineers and its relocation
services contractor specifically requires that a mobile home owned
by a transferring employee be permanently affixed to land owned by
the employee to be eligible for purchase by the relocation services
contractor.  The Army's employee relocation handbook also sets
forth this requirement.  For this reason, the Corps of Engineers
informed DLA in February 1996, that Mr. Marshall's request for
relocation services would not be accepted because his property was
not eligible.  This information was then communicated to Mr.
Marshall.

     Claimant responded by requesting that the agency pay off the
mortgage on his home ($48,000) and reimburse him for nonrefundable
expenses of $525 incurred in connection with his efforts to
purchase a house in Texas.  In his letter requesting relief,
claimant explains that he requested relocation services because he
could not find a realtor willing to handle the sale of his mobile
home.  Further, his mortgage company, California Veterans Agency
(Cal-Vet), would not permit the house to be moved outside the
state, and in any event the cost of moving the house to Texas would
have been so exorbitant as to make this option impracticable.  When
his request to apply for relocation services was approved, Mr.
Marshall moved to Texas and located a home he wished to purchase. 
Expecting that the sale of his home in California was a "completed
affair," he went ahead with the negotiation of a contract for the
purchase of the home in Texas.  When Mr. Marshall was unable to
obtain a letter confirming that the relocation services company
would purchase his mobile home, the application for a mortgage in
Texas was denied.  This resulted in the loss of certain
nonrefundable costs, i.e., the appraisal fee, credit report charge,
and home inspection fee, totaling $525.  

                                Discussion

     Under 5 U.S.C.  5724c (1994) federal agencies are permitted
to enter into relocation service contracts with private firms to
provide relocation services to agencies and employees.  These
services include, but are not limited to, arranging for the
purchase of a transferred employee's residence.  The regulations
implementing section 5724c are found in the Federal Travel 
Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-12 (1996) and in the JTR (chapter 15),
which implements the FTR and applies to civilian employees of the
Department of Defense.  

     Claimant argues that in reliance on the approval of his
request to use the relocation services he moved to Texas and
proceeded to attempt to purchase a new home.  He did this expecting
that the relocation services company would purchase his mobile home
in some reasonable period of time.  He contends that since he went
ahead with the move and was subsequently informed that the
relocation services would not be available, he was no longer in a
position to deal with the home in California.  Claimant believes
that since he was not advised of his ineligibility for relocation
services in time to avoid the move and losses incurred in
attempting to purchase a new home, the Government should pay him
the remaining amount due on the home (and late fees and legal
expenses attributable to his defaults on the mortgage after the
move to Texas) and the lost fees incurred in his initial attempt to
purchase a new residence.  

     Nothing in the statute or regulations entitles Mr. Marshall to
recover the amounts claimed for the outstanding mortgage on the
mobile home and associated legal fees and late payment charges. 
DLA was not required to make relocation services available to
claimant, nor is the availability of such services a guarantee that
the relocation services company will make an offer to purchase the
property that will be acceptable to the employee.  Moreover, there
is nothing in the record to suggest that any DLA employee ever
advised Mr. Marshall that the relocation services company would be
obligated to buy his mobile home for more than its apparent current
market value of approximately $20,000.  The fact that Mr. Marshall
mistakenly believed that the relocation services contractor would
purchase his mobile home at some point does not make the Government
liable for purchasing the unit when the services became
unavailable. See Chester A. Jordan, GSBCA 13868-RELO (May 1, 1997). 
The pertinent regulations expressly preclude a direct Government
purchase of any residence. 41 CFR 302-12.6(b)(2) (1995).  Moreover,
there is no authority to absorb losses in property value due to
market conditions or delays in the provision of relocation
services, nor is there any authority to reimburse incidental
expenses that may be incurred as a result of delays or failures to
provide relocation services.  Corey B. Preston, B-234065 (Sept. 8,
1969); 41 CFR 302-12.6(b)(2).

     As to the fees incurred in connection with the attempt to
purchase a new residence in Texas, there similarly is no basis for
payment of the amounts requested.  Although the regulations
contemplate reimbursement of the costs of obtaining appraisals,
credit reports, and inspections with respect to completed
residential transactions, there is no suggestion in the statute or
the regulations that such items should be reimbursed in
circumstances such as these, where the transfer is completed and
the purchase does not take place because the transferee is unable
to qualify for the mortgage. 

     To conclude, there is no statutory or regulatory basis for
granting any portion of Mr. Marshall's claim. 





                                   _________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge