____________________________ April 30, 1997 ____________________________ GSBCA 13867-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS S. CUSHING Thomas S. Cushing, Shepherdstown, WV, Claimant. Al LaBombard, Chief, Employee Accounting Division, Austin Finance Center, Department of Veterans Affairs, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Thomas S. Cushing, was transferred by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from the Washington, DC area to Martinsburg, West Virginia. He decided to build a new home in West Virginia. He submitted a claim for reimbursement of real estate transaction costs incurred in connection with various closings associated with the purchase of the new home (i.e., lot, construction loan, and permanent mortgage). The VA Finance Center excluded costs associated with the construction loan, which claimant seeks to recover here. Mr. Cushing submitted a travel voucher to the VA for reimbursement of residential transaction costs on November 8, 1993. This claim consisted of three separate sets of documents representing three real estate closings on his new home in West Virginia. The closings were for lot purchase, construction loan, and permanent mortgage loan. The combined total claimed for the three closings came to $9,169. For the closing on the lot, Mr. Cushing claimed the following items which are the types of costs eligible for reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR): Legal and Related Costs $ 320.00 3.50 Escrow Agent's Fee $ 80.00 TOTAL $ 403.50 The $320 charge was for title examination; the $3.50 charge was a fee for recording the deed; the $80 charge represented a closing fee. For the closing on the construction loan, Mr. Cushing claimed the following items which are the types of costs that are eligible for reimbursement under the FTR: Legal and Related Costs $ 280.00 80.00 5.50 Lender's Appraisal Fee $ 260.00 Certifications $ 360.00 Credit Report $ 43.00 Mortgage Title Policy $ 702.70 Escrow Agent's Fee $ 80.00 Loan Origination Fee $ 2,422.50 TOTAL $ 4,233.70 The amount of $280 was charged for title examination; the $80 fee was for document preparation; the $5.50 charge was for recording the mortgage. The $360 charge was for a lender's inspection fee. For the final closing on the completed house, Mr. Cushing itemized and claimed the following items which are the types of costs that are eligible for reimbursement under the FTR: Legal and related Costs $ 200.00 100.00 6.00 Lender's Appraisal Fee 250.00 Certifications 150.00 Credit Report 46.00 Mortgage Title Policy 862.80 Escrow Agent's Fee 80.00 Loan Origination Fee $ 2,817.00 TOTAL $ 4,511.80 For legal and related costs, the $200 charge was for title examination, the $100 charge was for document preparation, and the $6 in fees was for recording the mortgage and releases. The certification charge represented a lender's inspection fee. The VA agreed that the costs documented by claimant represent expenses that are eligible for reimbursement under the FTR and paid the claimed amounts for the closings on the lot and the permanent financing. The claim for $4,233.70, with respect to the closing on the construction loan, was denied as duplicative of the same types of expenses already paid in connection with the other transactions. Mr. Cushing seeks review of the VA's decision concerning the expenses incurred in connection with the construction loan. A transferred employee's entitlement to reimbursement of real estate expenses incurred incident to relocation is governed by a statutory provision, 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4) (1994), and the pertinent provisions of the FTR, which implements the statute. The FTR provides that, to the extent allowable, the Government shall reimburse a transferred employee for expenses required for "the purchase (including construction) of one dwelling at his/her new duty station." 41 CFR 302-6.1 (1995). Under subsection 301- 6.2(d)(1)(x), reimbursable items include "[e]xpenses in connection with construction of a residence, which are comparable to expenses that are reimbursable in connection with the purchase of an existing residence." Under subsection 301-6.2(d)(2)(vi), expenses that result from construction of a residence are nonreimbursable. Mr. Cushing contends that the FTR permits full recovery of any expenses that are comparable to those that would be incurred in the purchase of an existing home, even when certain types of expenses, such as title searches and appraisals, are incurred more than once because multiple closings are required. He further urges that since multiple closings are required and customary in the locality where his new home was constructed he could not have avoided paying these costs and should therefore be reimbursed. In essence, Mr. Cushing argues that since the FTR authorizes reimbursement of such expenses when an employee chooses to build a new home, and literally all of the expenses he claims are comparable to expenses incurred in the purchase of an existing home, he should recover the full amount. The General Accounting Office (GAO), which reviewed claims of this nature pursuant to 31 U.S.C.  3702 (1994) until June 30, 1996, has construed these provisions of the FTR to provide that an employee who chooses to construct a home at the new duty station will be permitted to recover real estate expenses to the same extent as an employee who purchased an existing home. Where each stage of the building process involves a number of expenses which would appropriately be reimbursed in connection with the purchase of an existing residence, the employee may be reimbursed only once for each type of expense that is allowable under the regulations. See, e.g., David R. Petak, B-247860 (July 23, 1992); James A. Schampers, 69 Comp. Gen. 573 (1990); Michael D. May, B-223112 (Nov. 25, 1986). GAO has further concluded that the expenses incurred incident to permanent financing on the completed house are most representative of expenses an employee would incur to purchase an existing residence and that entitlement determinations should be based primarily on an examination of that settlement. Schampers; Ray F. Hunt, B-226271 (Nov. 5, 1987). When similar fees and expenses are incurred more than once as a result of the decision to construct a new home rather than buy an existing residence, the duplicate fees are considered to have resulted from the construction of the new home and are not reimbursable. Richard T. Bible, B-208302 (July 17, 1984). We find GAO's interpretation of these FTR provisions to be sound and we will follow it. The fact that claimant had no choice but to close three times in order to construct the new home is immaterial. The costs incurred in the construction loan closing would not have been incurred had claimant purchased an existing residence. The costs assessed in that closing are for the same items as the costs in the final closing. Mr. Cushing is not entitled to reimbursement of the items paid with respect to that transaction; the claim was properly disallowed by the VA. __________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge