________________________

                             February 28, 1997
                         ________________________



                             GSBCA 13848-RELO


                     In the Matter of ROBERT R. BURNS


     Robert R. Burns, Ashburn, VA, Claimant.

     Gale M. Perryman, PCS Administrator, Department of the Air
Force, Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC, appearing for
Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     In January 1995, Robert R. Burns, a civilian employee of the
Department of the Air Force (Air Force) in California, transferred
to Virginia.  In connection with the transfer, the Air Force agreed
to reimburse Mr. Burns for sixty days of temporary quarters
subsistence expenses (TQSE).  On March 11, 1995, Mr. Burns and his
family arrived in Virginia and moved into their temporary quarters,
an apartment which Mr. Burns rented for $2,535 per month.  On
March 27, 1995, Mr. Burns signed a contract to purchase a house
which was to be constructed and available on or about June 30,
1995.  On March 31, 1995, Mr. Burns applied for a mortgage loan to
be guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA loan).  

     Mr. Burns' sixty-day TQSE period was due to expire on May 7,
1995.  In late March or early April 1995, Mr. Burns telephoned an
Air Force permanent change of station (PCS) administrator to
discuss extending the time for which he could be reimbursed for
TQSE.  The PCS administrator directed Mr. Burns' attention to an
Air Force policy letter regarding TQSE.  The Air Force had given a
copy of the policy letter to Mr. Burns when he transferred from
California.  The policy letter states that an extension of TQSE is
not justified if an employee needs to continue to occupy temporary
quarters because the employee is having a home built and the
completion date specified in the purchase contract is beyond the
initial TQSE period.  According to Mr. Burns, the PCS administrator
stated that a request to extend his TQSE period would be denied,
based upon the policy letter. 

     On April 24, 1995, Mr. Burns submitted a request for an
extension of his TQSE period.  In his request, Mr. Burns stated
that he anticipated occupying his permanent quarters on June 30,
1995, but Mr. Burns did not state that this was the reason he
needed to extend his stay in temporary quarters.  Mr. Burns stated
that an extension was justified for two reasons.  First, he had not
yet been approved for a loan by his mortgage company, and would not
be approved during the initial sixty-day TQSE period.  According to
a letter from the mortgage company, the company s average time for
processing a VA loan was between forty-five and sixty days. 
Second, Mr. Burns stated that he would have to move from his
current temporary quarters to other, less expensive, quarters
unless his TQSE period was extended, and he was concerned about the
stress that such a move would cause his children.

     As an alternative to extending the TQSE period, Mr. Burns
requested that the Air Force pay him "partial subsistence" of
$5,000.  Mr. Burns explained that he found his apartment with the
assistance of a relocation service recommended by the Air Force
and, although the rent was within the maximum limit for TQSE
reimbursement, it was more than Mr. Burns could afford to pay
without being reimbursed. 

     Mr. Burns' authorization to be reimbursed for TQSE expired on
May 7, 1995.  On May 18, 1995, the Air Force denied Mr. Burns'
request for an extension of the sixty-day TQSE period, citing its
policy letter.  Mr. Burns stayed in his temporary quarters until
June 21, 1995.  Before moving into his permanent quarters on July
5, 1995, Mr. Burns went to school for one week, stayed in a hotel,
and stayed with family members.

     Mr. Burns asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to
determine whether the Air Force should have extended his TQSE
period and, if so, to determine the amount that he should be
reimbursed. 



                                Discussion

     When an employee is transferred in the interest of the
Government from one official station to another for permanent duty,
the agency may reimburse the employee for up to sixty days for
"[s]ubsistence expenses . . . while occupying temporary quarters." 
The agency is authorized to reimburse the employee "[u]nder such
regulations as the President may prescribe and to the extent
considered necessary and appropriate, as provided therein . . . ." 
An agency may extend the period of residence in temporary quarters
by up to an additional sixty days if the head of the agency
determines that there are compelling reasons for continued
occupancy of temporary quarters.  5 U.S.C.  5724a(a) (1994).  The
President delegated to the Administrator of the General Services
Administration (GSA) the authority to prescribe regulations
implementing this section and, consequently, GSA issued the Federal
Travel Regulation (FTR).

     The FTR provides that the initial sixty-day TQSE period may be
extended by up to an additional sixty days 

     only in situations where there is a demonstrated need for
     additional time due to circumstances which have occurred
     during the initial 60-day period of occupancy and which
     are determined to be beyond the employee's control and
     acceptable to the agency.

41 CFR 302-5.2(a)(2) (1996).  The FTR also provides that heads of
agencies shall prescribe procedures for administering the FTR's
provisions concerning TQSE.  41 CFR 302-5.1.  

     The Department of Defense issues the Joint Travel Regulations
(JTR), which apply to civilian employees of the Department of
Defense.  These regulations provide that the initial sixty-day TQSE
period may be extended if the head of the employee's Department of
Defense component determines there are "compelling reasons for the
continued occupancy of temporary quarters."  The regulations also
contain language nearly identical to that found in the FTR, quoted
in the preceding paragraph.  JTR C13004-A.2. 

     The Air Force issued a policy letter concerning TQSE.  The
policy letter, like the JTR, contains language nearly identical to
that found in the FTR, quoted above.  The policy letter also gives
examples of when the Air Force may and may not extend the TQSE
period.  In one example, an employee contracts to build a house and
the contract establishes a completion date within the TQSE period. 
If the house cannot be completed within the TQSE period because of
bad weather, strikes, or other unforeseen circumstances beyond the
employee's control, the Air Force can extend the TQSE period.  If,
however, the employee contracts to build a home and the completion
date specified in the contract is beyond the initial TQSE period,
the Air Force will not extend the TQSE period.

     The statute, the regulations, and the policy letter all
require the Air Force to determine why it was necessary for
Mr. Burns to occupy his temporary quarters for more than sixty
days, and to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to extend
Mr. Burns' initial sixty-day TQSE period.  The Air Force determined
that Mr. Burns needed to occupy temporary quarters for more than
sixty days because he entered into a contract to purchase permanent
quarters that would not be available until after the initial TQSE
period expired.  The Air Force did not abuse its discretion when it
decided not to extend Mr. Burns' TQSE period.  Mr. Burns
voluntarily entered into a contract to purchase permanent quarters
that would not be available until approximately two months after
his authorized TQSE period expired.  It was within the Air Force's
discretion to decide that nothing occurred during the initial
sixty-day TQSE period which was beyond Mr. Burns' control and which
constituted a compelling reason to extend the TQSE period.

     Mr. Burns contends that, in reaching its decision, the Air
Force should not have considered that he was purchasing a house to
be constructed and available on or about June 30, 1995.  Instead,
says Mr. Burns, the agency should have considered only the two
reasons he presented in support of his request for an extension of
the TQSE period.  These reasons were that his mortgage loan had not
yet been approved and that his children would have to move to a
second set of temporary quarters.  We find nothing wrong with the
Air Force taking into account all of the information available when
it considered Mr. Burns' request for an extension of the TQSE
period.  The Air Force was not obligated to ignore the fact that,
when Mr. Burns signed a contract for delivery of a house on or
about June 30, his TQSE period was due to expire on May 7, 1995.

     In addition, the Air Force's decision to reject Mr. Burns' two
reasons as justifying an extension of the TQSE period is
understandable.  Mr. Burns does not explain how, if at all, the
approval of the mortgage loan would have affected his need for
temporary quarters.  Even if the mortgage company had approved the
loan before the end of the initial sixty-day TQSE period, Mr. Burns
would have continued to need temporary quarters for approximately
two months, until he could move into his permanent quarters. 
Although it is understandable that Mr. Burns would not want to move
his children to other temporary quarters, this is not the reason
that he needed an extension of the TQSE period.  Mr. Burns needed
the extension because his permanent quarters would not be
constructed and available, according to the terms of the contract
he signed, until well after his initial TQSE period expired.  

     In his request to GAO, Mr. Burns states that he needed an
extension of the TQSE period due to a financial hardship that was
created when the Air Force did not make a timely decision regarding
his request for an extension of the TQSE period.  Mr. Burns states
that it is beyond his control if Air Force employees are overworked
and could not respond more quickly to his request for an extension
of the TQSE period.  Mr. Burns needed an extension of the initial
sixty-day TQSE period because he could not move into his permanent
quarters until after the sixty days expired.  The Air Force was not
obligated to extend the TQSE period for Mr. Burns, and the length
of time that the Air Force took to consider Mr. Burns' request for
an extension had no bearing upon Mr. Burns' need to remain in
temporary quarters for more than sixty days.  

     Finally, if Mr. Burns' request for $5,000 "partial
subsistence" is a request for TQSE, the Air Force properly denied
the request, as explained above.  We have not found any statute
that gives us the authority to review Mr. Burns  request if it is
for something other than TQSE.





                                   ______________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge