________________________________________ February 7, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 13860-RELO In the Matter of EARL G. GONGLOFF Earl G. Gongloff, Virginia Beach, VA, Claimant. Stephen A. Rose, Staff Judge Advocate, United States Atlantic Command, Norfolk, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. BORWICK, Board Judge. Earl G. Gongloff is a joint (military) exercise coordinator with the Human Resources Office (HRO) of the United States Atlantic Command (USACOM), Norfolk, Virginia. He seeks permanent change of station (PCS) expenses of $16,925 connected with his transfer to that position from a traffic management specialist, Military Traffic Management Command, in the Washington, D.C. area. Claimant maintains that his transfer was in the interest of the Government, thus entitling him to relocation expenses. USACOM denied the expenses. It determined that the transfer was not in the interest of the Government because locally qualified candidates were likely to apply and that the position of exercise coordinator was not either critical or difficult to fill. We sustain the agency's determination. USACOM issued a vacancy announcement restricting the area of consideration to appointable employees of the Department of Defense (DOD) in the Hampton Roads, Virginia area. USACOM did not receive applications from acceptable candidates; it issued a second vacancy announcement--designated NB/0090/LY/C4--with an area of consider- ation broadened to include DOD activities without geographical restriction. This second vacancy announcement had as a note, in prominent capital letters: "RELOCATION COSTS WILL NOT BE PAID." In response, four qualified candidates, three of whom came from the Hampton Roads area, applied for the job. Mr. Gongloff learned about the vacancy from the Norfolk Naval Base job "hotline"; he applied for the job without reading the vacancy announcement. USACOM advised Mr. Gongloff of his tentative selection for the position, provided that he pass a drug test. After completion of the drug testing, USACOM extended a formal offer of employment to Mr. Gongloff and orally advised him that relocation expenses would not be paid. USACOM did not issue PCS orders to the claimant. Mr. Gongloff accepted the employment and, a few days before reporting for duty, visited his new duty station soliciting approval of his request for the PCS allowance. Claimant reported for duty and formally requested the PCS travel allowance. A USACOM colonel, thinking Mr. Gongloff's request was routine, forwarded to his superior his endorsement, with the statement that hiring Mr. Gongloff was "in the best interest" of the Department of Defense and USACOM. The colonel was not authorized to make findings concerning eligibility for PCS allowances. He rescinded his endorsement and replaced it with a substitute endorsement stating that Mr. Gongloff was the best qualified of the candidates to fill the position. USACOM denied Mr. Gongloff's request for a PCS because it was USACOM's policy not to pay relocation costs to an applicant outside the local area if a qualified applicant was available within the local area. Claimant then filed an internal agency grievance, which USACOM denied. The payment of transportation and relocation expenses of a transferred employee is authorized under subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code. Where an agency recruits or requests an employee to transfer to a different location, such transfer is regarded, in the absence of a contrary determination, as being in the interest of the Government and relocation expenses are payable. Darrell M. Thrasher, B-259960 (Sept. 21, 1995). However, an agency may issue regulations concerning relocation setting forth guidelines as to the specific conditions and factors to be considered in determining whether a transfer is in the interest of the Government and whether relocation expenses will be paid. Thrasher. When the agency has issued such regulations, and has communicated the information in advance and in writing to all applicants, the agency's determination that a transfer is not in the interest of the Government will not be overturned unless the determination is shown to have been arbitrary and capricious or clearly erroneous. See Paul C. Martin, GSBCA 13722-RELO (Dec. 11, 1996); Thrasher. The agency has issued such guidelines in the Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which provide in pertinent part: C4100 ELIGIBILITY FOR PCS TRAVEL A. PCS Travel in The Interest of the Government . . . . 2. Department of Defense (DOD) Component Responsibility It is the responsibility of each DOD component to make decisions that balance the rights of employees and the prudent use of appropriated funds. For instance, activities may determine that well qualified candidates exist within a particular geographical area and therefore in their recruitment announcements, restrict the area of recruitment and/or indicate that PCS allowances are not offered. B. Eligibility for PCS Allowances . . . . 1. Management Directed. If a DOD component recruits or requests an employee to transfer . . . it will regard such transfer as being in the interest of the Government. 2. PCS Moves Not in Interest of the Government. If an employee actively pursues, solicits or requests a position change resulting in the geographic move of such employee from one PDS [permanent duty station] to another, such a transfer is primarily for the convenience and benefit of the employee. The gaining activity must formally advise the employee at the time the offer is extended the transfer is in the interest of the employee and not in the interest of the Government, and that PCS expenses shall not be paid by the Government. 3. Notification of Payment or Nonpayment of PCS Allow- ances. When a DOD component is preparing to recruit for a vacancy, the appropriate official should make every effort to determine prior to advertising the vacancy whether it is in the interest of the Government to pay PCS allowances so this information can be provided during the advertisement period. However, the determination regarding payment or nonpayment of PCS allowances may also be made after applicants have been referred to the selecting official. The determination will be based on factors such as cost effectiveness, labor market condi- tions and difficulty in filling the vacancy. Budget constraints alone do not justify the denial of PCS allowances. Vacancy announcement NB/0090/LY/C4 stated that relocation costs would not be paid. Mr. Gongloff argues that he was not advised that he would be ineligible to receive relocation costs. The vacancy announcement, however, was notice to Mr. Gongloff and every other applicant for the position that relocation costs would not be paid. Thrasher. If Mr. Gongloff was ignorant of that fact, he has only himself to blame for his failure to read the vacancy announcement. USACOM explains that the position did not carry relocation expenses because it had determined that locally qualified candi- dates were likely to apply and that the position of exercise coordinator was not determined to be a critical position or a position that was difficult to fill. These determinations were confirmed by the fact that four qualified candidates, three of whom were from the Hampton Roads area, applied. The fact that a colonel erroneously phrased an endorsement indicating that the employee might be eligible for such costs does not make USACOM's determina- tion arbitrary or capricious. Upon being advised of the mistake, the colonel corrected the endorsement. Mr. Gongloff was not misled. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge