_________________________

                           May 29, 1997
                    _________________________


                         GSBCA 13908-RELO


               In the Matter of MRS. JACK KIMBROUGH


     Mrs. Jack Kimbrough, Lawrence, KS, Claimant.

     Deborah A. Osipchak, Manager, Financial Policy and
Administrative Branch, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, appearing for 
Department of Transportation.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     On October 18, 1996, the Federal Aviation Administration's
(FAA's) Policy and Administrative Branch requested an opinion from
the Board regarding a permanent change of station (PCS) move of a
deceased FAA employee.  Specifically, the surviving spouse of an
FAA employee (claimant) requested reimbursement of expenses
incurred in selling a residence incident to the employee's
projected permanent change of station; the employee had been
authorized a PCS move and had entered into a travel and
transportation agreement and a relocation services contract prior
to his death, but had not transferred to the new duty station or
sold his residence.  For the reasons stated below, we deny the
claim.

                            Background

     Effective September 24, 1993, Mr. Jack Kimbrough, an employee
in FAA's Air Traffic Control Tower in Hutchinson, Kansas, was
authorized a PCS move from Hutchinson, Kansas, to Des Moines,
Iowa, with a reporting date of May 16, 1994.  In the travel
authorization, FAA had authorized government-provided relocation
services in the estimated amount of $9000 as well as reimbursement
of residence transaction expenses in the estimated amount of
$4050. In January 1994, Mr. Kimbrough and his spouse entered into a
relocation services program through FAA.  Under this program, FAA
contracted with PHH Homequity (PHH) to expedite the sale of the
Kimbroughs' home.  PHH Homequity's Employee Relocation Services
Guide, which was provided to the Kimbroughs, stated in pertinent
part:

     DOT/FAA has contracted with PHH Homequity to expedite the
     sale of your current home.  This includes helping you to
     effectively market your home on your own and actually
     offering to purchase the property based on a value
     determined by two independent market value appraisals. 
     You will have 60 days to accept or decline the offer from
     PHH Homequity once it is made.  If you decline the offer
     you may still use your agency's direct reimbursement
     system once the property is sold and settled.  However,
     you may not be reimbursed for duplicate expenses paid to
     PHH Homequity.

     On February 21, 1994, PHH presented the Kimbroughs with an
offer of $51,000 for their home.  Mr. Kimbrough was killed on
March 6, 1994.  Mrs. Kimbrough was pregnant at the time of
Mr. Kimbrough's death and gave birth to a daughter two days after
her husband died.  At the request of Mrs. Kimbrough, PHH extended
the offer until May 23, 1994, but Mrs. Kimbrough did not accept 
the offer, and it automatically expired on that date.

     On February 7, 1995, Mrs. Kimbrough sold the home through a
commercial real estate broker for $54,500.  On February 18, 1995,
she submitted a claim and voucher for reimbursement of $4,124
representing brokerage fees and legal and other costs related to
the sale of the residence.

     On June 6, 1995, FAA advised claimant that it was unable to
process her claim based upon guidance provided by the General
Accounting Office (GAO).  FAA stated:

     Unfortunately, your husband died before the official PCS
     transfer occurred and there was no official contract to
     sell your home in place.  Additionally, after you broke
     the contract or allowed it to expire with the relocation
     firm and accepted no other offers during that period, all
     rights were terminated.  Therefore, no entitlements are
     due for the sale of your home.

     FAA further advised claimant that she could request an
adjudication.  Claimant did so, and on August 15, 1995, the manager
of FAA's Financial Management Service Center referred this matter
to the Comptroller General for adjudication requesting "a
definitive interpretation as it pertains to the [Comptroller
General's] decision" in Guriqbal S. Nat, B-248698 (Sept. 18, 1992),
which according to FAA "stipulated" that the "only allowable cost
would be those expenses incurred during the time the transfer was
in effect up until the time of the employee's death."

     On September 4, 1996, GAO advised FAA that the authority to
resolve this claim had been transferred to this Board.  By letter
dated October 11, 1996, FAA requested that the Board issue a
"definitive interpretation" taking into account the circumstances
of this particular case.

                            Discussion

     Statute authorizes payment of certain expenses connected
with the sale of a residence incurred when a federal employee is
transferred in the interest of the Government from one official
station or agency to another for permanent duty.  5 U.S.C.
 5724a(a)(4) (1994).  The purpose of authorizing such payment
"is to reimburse the extra expenses to which employees are put as a
result of transfers of official stations."  Gerard Wijsmuller,
B-183389 (Nov. 24, 1975).

     Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 302-6.1, Conditions and
Requirements under which Allowances are Payable, provides:

          To the extent allowable under this part, the
     Government shall reimburse an employee for expenses
     required to be paid by him/her in connection with the
     sale of one residence at his/her old official station,
     for purchase (including construction) of one dwelling at
     his/her new official station, or for the settlement of an
     unexpired lease involving his/her residence or a lot on
     which a mobile home used as his/her residence was located
     at the old official station provided the conditions set
     forth in this section are met:

     . . . .

          (e) Time Limitation - (1) Initial Period.  The
     settlement dates for the sale and purchase or lease
     termination transactions for which reimbursement is
     requested  [may not be] later than two years after the
     date that the employee reported for duty at the new
     official station.

FTR 302-6.1 (1994).

     Both statute and regulation clearly contemplate that
reimbursement of real estate expenses depends upon a transfer in
the interest of the Government, and a showing that the expenses
were incurred incident to such transfer.  Here, the employee
never reported for duty at the new official station.  Thus, Mr.
Kimbrough was never actually transferred in the interest of the Government.

   We are unable to conclude that his widow's sale of the residence
over a year after his death was incident to his uncompleted
transfer or was in the interest of the Government.  We are not
aware of any Comptroller General decisions which have allowed
reimbursement of real estate expenses where a transfer never
actually transpired due to an employee's death.

     Here, the agency requested an interpretation of the
Comptroller General's decision in Guriqbal S. Nat, B-248698
(Sept. 18, 1992), as it pertains to the instant claim.  In Nat, an
employee who had been authorized to make a PCS move died before
reporting to his new duty station.  However, at the time of his
death the employee's household goods had been shipped by the
agency.  Subsequent to his death, his surviving dependents moved
to the location of the new duty station, and the widow claimed
reimbursement for their travel and relocation expenses.  The
Comptroller General held that the claimant could be reimbursed for
the cost of shipping and storing the household goods, but not for
the travel, temporary quarters subsistence allowance, and
miscellaneous expenses incurred by the dependents.  GAO reasoned:

     [T]he storage charges properly were paid by NASA since
     these charges arose out of the same transaction and the
     need for these charges continued after the employee's
     death.

     . . . .  The en route travel, TQSE [temporary quarters
     subsistence expenses], and miscellaneous expenses . . .
     were incurred after Mr. Nat had died and there is no
     indication that his family moved to California to fulfill
     a legal obligation incurred while his travel orders were
     in effect.  Rather, it appears that Mrs. Nat's decision
     to move her family there following her husband's death
     was a personal decision.  Since we do not find that these
     expenses were incurred in the interest of the government,
     we see no legal basis upon which to reimburse the
     dependents for these expenses.

     We find this rationale persuasive.  In the instant case, as
in Nat, the employee died before reporting to his new duty station. 
Nor is there any indication here that the widow moved to the new
duty station or that her move was in the interest of the Government. 

     Thus, there was no showing that the expenses incurred by the
spouse arose out of the uncompleted transfer of the deceased
employee or that the spouse's claimed real estate expenses were
incident to the transfer.

                             Decision

     Claimant may not be reimbursed for the requested real estate
expenses.




                                   __________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge