_____________________

                              April 21, 1997
                          ______________________


                             GSBCA 13850-RELO


                      In the Matter of RODNEY C. LOWE


     Rodney C. Lowe, Huntington, WV, Claimant.

     Steve Goldberg, Travel Ombudsman and Chief, Office of Travel
Management and Relocation, Internal Revenue Service, Washington,
DC, appearing for Department of the Treasury. 

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Mr. Rodney Lowe, an employee of the Department of the
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), asked the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to review IRS's denial of his claim for
travel and per diem expenses.  The matter was subsequently
transferred to this Board.  For the reasons explained below, we
affirm the IRS's decision to deny Mr. Lowe's claim.

     The pertinent facts are as follows.  Until September 1991, Mr.
Lowe was employed as a GS-13 Quality Improvement Coordinator at the
IRS office in Huntington, West Virginia.  On September 8, Mr. Lowe
was selected for the position of Branch Chief, a GS-14 position in
Parkersburg, West Virginia.  The Branch Chief job was announced as
a temporary, developmental position, not to exceed two years.  Mr.
Lowe was told that the position would probably become permanent.

     Mr. Lowe moved from Milton, West Virginia to Parkersburg in
November 1991, although his family stayed in Milton.  The IRS paid
his relocation expenses of approximately $2,000.  Mr. Lowe remained
in the position for the full two years and, through a series of
extensions, for an additional fourteen months.  The Branch Chief
position was never made permanent, however.  On November 27, 1994,
the position was abolished and Mr. Lowe was transferred to a GS-13
position back in Huntington.  The IRS again paid his relocation
expenses in connection with the move.

     Mr. Lowe filed a claim seeking reimbursement for the rent paid
for his apartment in Parkersburg, plus telephone, electric and
cable television costs, and meals and incidental expenses of $30
per day, for a total of $42,503.23.  IRS denied the claim,
reasoning that, since Mr. Lowe's official duty station had changed
from Huntington to Parkersburg, he was not entitled to travel and
per diem expenses.

                                Discussion

     By statute, a federal employee, when traveling on official
business away from the employee's designated post of duty, is
entitled to receive travel expenses in the form of a per diem
allowance, reimbursement of actual expenses, or a combination of
both.  5 U.S.C.  5702(a)(1) (1994).  Section 301 of the Federal
Travel Regulation, which implements the above-cited statute,
defines the term "Official station and post of duty" as follows:

          Designated post of duty and official station
          have the same meaning.  The limits of the
          official station will be the corporate limits
          of the city or town in which the officer or
          employee is stationed. . . .

41 CFR 301-1.3(c)(4)(1994).  A per diem allowance "shall not be
allowed within the limits of the official station or at, or within
the vicinity of, the place of abode (home) from which the employee
commuted daily to the official station."  41 CFR 301-7.5(a).

     A long line of cases decided by GAO discusses the analysis to
be performed in deciding whether assignment to a particular
location should be considered a temporary duty assignment or a
change of official station.  According to GAO, the question of
whether assignment to a particular station is temporary or
permanent is a question of fact to be determined from the orders
directing the assignment, the duration of the assignment, and the
nature of the duties performed.  Edward W. DePiazza, 68 Comp. Gen.
465 (1989).   The agency has discretion to determine how to treat
the assignment, i.e., as a permanent change of station or as a
temporary duty assignment.  Executive Exchange Program, 70 Comp.
Gen. 378 (1991).  We think GAO's reasoning in these cases is sound
and we will follow it.

     There is nothing in the record here upon which to base a
finding that the IRS abused its discretion in treating Mr. Lowe's
assignment as a change of official station.  First, Mr. Lowe was
never told, either in written orders or orally, that he would
receive a per diem allowance for temporary duty in Parkersburg.  To
the contrary, he applied for and received reimbursement of the
relocation expenses to which an employee is entitled when he 
transfers from one permanent duty station to another permanent duty
station.  See 5 U.S.C.  5724(a), 5724a.  Second, the duration of
the assignment -- more than three years -- strikes us as more
permanent than temporary in nature.  Although, for personnel or
budgetary reasons, the position was designated as "temporary," both
the IRS and Mr. Lowe believed that Mr. Lowe had been permanently
assigned to Parkersburg.  Finally, Mr. Lowe's duties in Parkersburg
were not of a temporary nature; he was appointed as a Branch Chief,
a supervisory position within the Parkersburg office.

     Given these factors, the IRS reasonably treated Mr. Lowe's
assignment to Parkersburg as a change of official station rather
than a temporary duty assignment.  The fact that things did not
work out as either Mr. Lowe or the IRS expected does not change the
essential character of the assignment.

                                 Decision

     The claim is denied.




                                   _______________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge