April 18, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 13845-RELO


                      In the Matter of THOMAS M. HOOD


     Thomas M. Hood, Columbus, OH, Claimant.

     Phyllis J. Campbell, Chief, Travel Policy Branch, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service - Columbus Center, Columbus, OH,
appearing for Department of Defense.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     Thomas M. Hood, a Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) electronics
engineer, requests a review of his agency's determination not to
extend the period of time for which he was authorized temporary
quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE).  We think the agency's denial
of Mr. Hood's claim was correct, given the regulation in effect at
the time of his move.

     On February 2, 1996, DLA issued orders to Mr. Hood to make a
permanent change of station from Dayton, Ohio, to Columbus, Ohio,
effective on or about July 14, 1996.  The orders authorized payment
of sixty days of TQSE.  The orders also authorized up to ten days
of travel to seek a new residence; these days were to be deducted
from the number allowed for TQSE.

     Mr. Hood and his wife spent five days on a househunting trip. 
On March 25, they contracted with a builder to purchase a home
which would be constructed in the Columbus area.  The contract
provided that the builder would "use its best efforts to complete
construction within 120 days after commencement of construction, or
as soon thereafter as is practical."  Construction began on or
about April 25.  One hundred twenty days from this date was August
23.

     The Hoods moved into temporary quarters on June 30.  The
remaining period of TQSE, fifty-five days, began on that date, and
therefore was scheduled to end on August 23.

     On August 17, the builder's president stated that "due to
[inclement] weather, the original completion date cannot be met." 
He projected that the house would be finished by October 1.  Mr.
Hood then asked DLA to extend his TQSE period by thirty-nine days
-- until the new expected completion date.

     The agency denied his request.  It concluded that his
justification was not compelling and that he had not demonstrated
that the need for additional time was due to circumstances which
occurred during the initial sixty-day period of temporary quarters
occupancy.

     Statute provides that the Government shall pay certain
expenses incurred by its employees who are "transferred in the
interest of the Government from one official station or agency to
another for permanent duty."  These expenses include "[s]ubsistence
expenses of the employee and his immediate family for a period of
60 days while occupying temporary quarters when the new official
station is located within the United States [or other specified
locations]."  "The period of residence in temporary quarters may be
extended for an additional 60 days if the head of the agency
concerned or his designee determines that there are compelling
reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters."  5
U.S.C.  5724a(a)(3) (1994).

     The payment of these expenses is not an entitlement, however;
it must be made "[u]nder such regulations as the President may
prescribe and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate,
as provided therein."  5 U.S.C.  5724a(a); Thomas H. Potts, GSBCA
13700-RELO (Mar. 31, 1997).  The President has delegated to the
Administrator of General Services the authority to issue these
regulations, which are now part of the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR).  Exec. Order No. 11,609, 3 CFR 586 (1971-1975), reprinted as
amended in 3 U.S.C.  301 app. at 467-68 (1994); 41 CFR ch. 302
(1996).

     The FTR limits the circumstances in which an agency head or
his designee may find that an employee's reasons for continuing to
occupy temporary quarters, beyond the initial sixty days, are
sufficiently compelling to justify authorization of reimbursement
of living expenses for an additional period of time.  "Extensions
of the temporary quarters period may be authorized only in
situations where there is a demonstrated need for additional time
due to circumstances which" meet two requirements.  First, the
circumstances must "have occurred during the initial 60-day period
of occupancy."  Second, they must be "determined to be beyond the
employee's control and acceptable to the agency."  41 CFR 302-
5.2(a)(2).  One example of a reason which could meet these
requirements is "[n]ew permanent residence cannot be occupied
because of unanticipated problems (delays in settlement on new
residence, short term delay in construction of a new residence,
etc.)."  41 CFR 302-5.2(a)(2)(ii).

     Mr. Hood's justification and the builder's statement which is
appended to it both assert that the new residence could not be
occupied because of an unanticipated and uncontrollable short-term
delay in construction.  Neither the justification nor the
statement, however, meets the regulation's requirement that this
circumstance must have occurred during the initial sixty-day period
of occupancy.  Neither contains any indication as to when the cause
of the delay -- inclement weather -- transpired.  The only
statement in our record regarding the time of the bad weather was
supplied by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) in
forwarding this claim to us.  According to DFAS, "During the spring
of 1996 (April, May, and June), the weather in the Ohio area was
exceptionally rainy.  This postponed commencement of construction
on the house by several weeks."  The initial sixty-day period did
not begin to run until June 30, after the unusual amount of rain
had ended.  Thus, the claimant is unable to show, even if DFAS's
information is correct, that he meets a condition the regulation
specifies as indispensable to an extension of the period.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge