________________ May 16, 1997 ________________ GSBCA 13933-RELO In the Matter of DEREK T. LAMIRAULT Derek T. Lamirault, Lawton, OK, Claimant. David L. Hogan, Labor Relations Officer, Directorate of Civilian Personnel, Army Field Artillery Center, Fort Sill, OK, appearing for Department of the Army. PARKER, Board Judge. Derek T. Lamirault, an employee of the Department of the Army, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the Army's denial of his claims for relocation expenses and for loss of tenure/back pay in connection with his accepting a position at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Although GAO forwarded both claims to us, the Board has authority to review only Mr. Lamirault's claim for relocation expenses. We are sending Mr. Lamirault's claim for loss of tenure/back pay to the Office of Personnel Management. The pertinent facts are as follows. In October 1995, Mr. Lamirault, who was at that time an employee of the Department of the Navy in California, applied for a job as a utility systems repairer-operator with the Army at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The job announcement stated that "Payment of relocation expenses and/or recruitment bonus will depend on availability of local candidates and cost effectiveness." According to the Army, when a staffing specialist telephoned Mr. Lamirault to inform him that he had been selected for the job, she told Mr. Lamirault that no relocation expenses would be paid because at least two local qualified candidates had applied for the position. When Mr. Lamirault called back the next day to accept the job, the staffing specialist again stated that no relocation expenses would be paid. According to the Army, the staffing specialist's assistant overheard both conversations and confirms that the issue of relocation expenses was covered both times. Mr. Lamirault maintains, however, that the subject of relocation expenses "wasn't brought up." Discussion Federal employees who are transferred in the interest of the Government are entitled to payment of certain transportation and relocation expenses; employees who transfer primarily for their own convenience or benefit are not. 5 U.S.C.  5724a (1994); 41 CFR 302-1.3(a) (1996). Federal agencies have substantial discretion to determine whether a particular transfer is in the interest of the Government, and they may issue regulations setting forth guidelines and specific conditions and factors to be considered in making such determinations. Earl G. Gongloff, GSBCA 13680-RELO (Feb. 7, 1997). The Department of Defense has issued such regulations as part of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which provide in part as follows: [A] 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 [permanent change of station] allowances are not offered. B. Eligibility for PCS Allowances. When PCS orders are authorized in accordance with par. C3000, PCS allowances shall be paid to employees transferred from one official station to another for permanent duty, provided a determination has been made that the transfer is in the interest of the Government and is not primarily for the convenience or benefit of the employee or at his/her request. Guidelines for making this determination are as follows: 1. Management Directed. If a DOD component recruits or requests an employee to transfer (i.e., RIF, transfer of function, agency career development program, or agency directed placement); 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 an 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 Allowances. 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 conditions, and difficulty in filling the vacancy. Budget constraints alone do not justify the denial of PCS allowances. If a decision is made not to pay PCS allowances, the reason for this decision will be documented in writing by the appropriate official and maintained with the official staffing files. All applicants selected for interview must be notified in writing of the organization's decision to pay or not pay PCS allowances. If interviews are not held, the selectee must be informed, in writing, whether PCS allowances will or will not be paid. JTR C4100-A, B. Here, the Army did not abuse its discretion in deciding that relocation expenses would not be paid. Because there were at least two local qualified candidates for the position of utility systems repairer/operator, the Army did not need to transfer someone from California to fill the position. The Army's determination that the transfer was primarily for the benefit of Mr. Lamirault was reasonable. We are troubled by the Army's failure to inform Mr. Lamirault of its decision in writing as required by the JTR. We find, however, that Mr. Lamirault was fully informed that relocation expenses would not be paid prior to his accepting the position and moving to Fort Sill, and that he accepted the position knowing this. Thus, although Mr. Lamirault should have been informed in writing, the Army's failure to do so did not prejudice him. Decision The claim is denied. ____________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge