___________________ August 27, 1997 ___________________ GSBCA 13966-RELO In the Matter of RICK A. SCHMIDT Rick A. Schmidt, Brooklyn, NY, Claimant. Cynthia L. Carroll, Cash Management/Travel Support Group, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Education, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Education. Clem Gross, National Relocation Coordinator, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Treasury. HYATT, Board Judge. In February 1994, claimant, Mr. Rick A. Schmidt, then employed as a senior regional analyst by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Atlanta, Georgia, accepted a transfer to the Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Education (ED), in Washington, D.C. At that time, claimant owned a home in Lawrenceville, Georgia, from which he commuted daily to work at the IRS. In conjunction with the transfer, relocation allowances were authorized by ED, including allowable expenses associated with the sale of Mr. Schmidt's home in Georgia and the transportation of his household goods to the Washington, D.C. area. Claimant signed a twelve-month service agreement with ED on March 3, 1994, and commenced work on March 6, 1994. After assuming his new position at ED, Mr. Schmidt rented a temporary residence in the Washington, D.C. area and his family remained in Georgia pending the sale of their residence. In April 1994, claimant signed an agreement with a realtor to list his residence in Georgia for sale. Although he received some offers for the home, for various reasons the deals fell through and the house was still not sold by late August 1994. By that time, the real estate listing had expired and claimant's children were re- enrolled in school in Georgia. Claimant decided to wait until spring 1995 to list the house for sale again. The house was listed that spring and sold in September 1995. Effective June 11, 1995, Mr. Schmidt accepted a position as Branch Chief, Criminal Investigation Division, for the IRS in Brooklyn, New York. At that time he had incurred $9,388.73 in actual expenses for temporary quarters and storage of household goods in connection with the authorized move to Washington, but had not completed either the anticipated move of his family or related real estate transactions. Claimant s family moved and his household goods were transported to Connecticut, where claimant relocated for his position with the IRS, shortly after the sale of the Georgia residence on September 29, 1995. Claimant seeks reimbursement of the costs of selling his house in Georgia and of moving his family and household goods in conjunction with his two permanent changes of station (PCSs) from Atlanta, Georgia to Washington, D.C. and then to Brooklyn, New York. Although the IRS initially authorized relocation expenses to include expenses of selling the residence in Georgia, these orders were subsequently amended to cover only expenses applicable to a move from Washington, D.C. to the New York City area. The IRS maintains that any expenses related to the sale of the residence in Georgia and the portion of the cost of transporting his household goods from Georgia to the Washington, D.C. area are the obligation and responsibility of the Department of Education. ED has taken the position that it is not required under the regulations to reimburse any of claimant's relocation expenses that were incurred after he left the Department's employment on June 9, 1995, and returned to the IRS. Claimant has asked for a ruling on whether he is entitled to reimbursement of these expenses and, if so, how the costs should be apportioned between the two agencies. Discussion Claimant's entitlement to reimbursement of the expenses of relocating from Georgia to the Washington, D.C. area, and subsequently to the New York City area, is governed by the provisions of 5 U.S.C.  5724 and 5724a (1994). Subsection (a) of section 5724 authorizes reimbursement of the travel expenses incurred by a government employee who is transferred in the interest of the government from one official duty station or agency to another for permanent duty, as well as the transportation expenses of his immediate family and movement of his household goods. See also 41 CFR 302-1.3 (1996). The only statutory limitations on the right to reimbursement are that the transfer must be (1) in the interest of the government and (2) without a break in service. In addition, the employee must agree in writing to remain in government service for twelve months after his transfer. 5 U.S.C.  5724(a), (i). By statute as well, the gaining agency is liable for the expenses of a transfer. 5 U.S.C.  5724(e). None of the above limitations operate to bar reimbursement in this case. Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which implements the above statutory provisions, an agency is required to determine whether a particular transfer is in the government s interest or is primarily for the convenience or benefit of the employee. 41 CFR 302-1.3 (1996); 56 Comp. Gen. 709 (1977). Where an agency issued travel orders allowing the payment of certain relocation allowances to a transferred employee, the agency is presumed to have made the determination that the transfer was in the interest of the government. Such a determination will not be overturned unless it is shown that the original orders were arbitrary, capricious or clearly erroneous. Ronald DeFore, B-227663 (Oct. 23, 1987). In this case, neither agency has suggested that either transfer was not in the interest of the Government. Accordingly, we conclude that both transfers were in the interest of the government. Claimant signed a twelve-month service agreement upon transferring to ED, which he honored, and, upon transferring to the IRS, he entered into another such agreement. His transfers to ED and back to the IRS occurred without a break in service. Having met all the conditions, Mr. Schmidt qualifies for the full range of relocation benefits provided in 5 U.S.C.  5724 and 5724a. By regulation, transferred employees are entitled to a two- year period in which to sell a residence at the old duty station. 41 CFR 302-6.1(d). The FTR nowhere states that a transferred employee becomes ineligible for reimbursement of otherwise authorized relocation expenses incurred after the employee makes an inter-agency transfer to another location. When an employee does not relocate his immediate family incident to his first transfer before he is transferred a second time, he does not automatically lose all of the entitlements he had in connection with the first transfer, assuming that he still has time under pertinent regulations to complete the sale of his residence. Since reimbursement of the expenses of the purchase may not be conditioned upon an employee remaining with a particular agency, the fact that the claimant transferred to another agency before the settlement date is immaterial. United States Civil Service Commission, 51 Comp. Gen. 112 (1971); Raymond Kurlander, 46 Comp. Gen. 738 (1967), modified in part on other grounds, B-168663 (Jan. 21, 1970); see also Thomas D. Mulder, 65 Comp. Gen. 900 (1986); William F. Krone, B-213855 (May 31, 1984). Upon accepting the first transfer, claimant promptly put his Georgia residence up for sale. Although he was not successful in selling that property prior to his move from the Washington, D.C. area, the record reflects that it was claimant's intent to sell his property at the time of his first transfer. In the spring of 1995 he again listed his Georgia house with a broker with the intent to sell it. The record thus shows that claimant intended to sell his residence and that his residence was in fact sold incident to the first transfer. Upon selling his house, claimant moved his family and belongings directly to Connecticut because he had since accepted an offer of employment in Brooklyn, New York. Under these facts, the expenses of selling the house in Georgia are payable pursuant to claimant's initial transfer to the Department of Education. Ingram J. Grosberg, B-169155 (June 30, 1970); see also John L. Smith, B-166752 (July 2, 1969). Similarly, although no binding obligation had been entered into by claimant for the shipment of household goods prior to his transfer to the IRS, under the foregoing reasoning, this does not serve as a basis for disallowing reimbursement of such expenses. When an employee makes successive transfers and relocations from one agency to another, however, the agency from which he transfers is obligated to pay only expenses incident to the initial transfer, not those incident to the subsequent transfer. United States Civil Service Commission, 51 Comp. Gen. at 115-16; Richard E. Whitmer, B- 196002 (Mar. 18, 1980); 5 U.S.C.  5274(e). Under the FTR, the IRS is responsible for the allowable costs of shipping claimant's household goods in one lot from Washington, D.C. to Connecticut. 41 CFR 302-8.2(e). ED s obligation is to pay the remainder of the costs of shipping the household goods from Georgia. The agencies should apportion the allowable costs of transportation of claimant's family as well. In short, to the extent costs are allowable, the IRS is to reimburse claimant for the constructive cost of the move from Washington to Connecticut, and ED is to reimburse the remainder. ________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge