_________________

                             November 10, 1997
                             _________________



                             GSBCA 13967-RELO


                     In the Matter of LAZARO R. TORRES


     Lazaro R. Torres, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Claimant.

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

NEILL, Board Judge.

     The claimant in this case, Lazaro R. Torres, seeks
reimbursement for certain real estate expenses incurred in
connection with the purchase of a home at his new permanent work
station.  For the reasons set out below, we deny the claim.  

                                Background

     On February 29, 1992, Mr. Torres, an employee of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), was selected for a position as air
traffic control specialist in Miami, Florida.  On March 22, he
reported for work at his new duty station.  

     Because of a pending grievance proceeding, Mr. Torres'
travel orders authorizing his move to Miami were not issued until
considerably later, on November 30, 1992.  Among other items, the
orders, when finally issued, authorized allowances for expenses
incurred in connection with real estate transactions.  By letter
dated April 19, 1994, Mr. Torres requested a one year extension
of this authorization "in order to complete all transactions at
my new residence."  He explained that there had been a delay in
the construction of his new home owing to unforeseen
circumstances.  The agency states that this request was granted
on April 26, 1994.  


     On April 28, 1995, Mr. Torres paid the sum of $8490 in
escrow to the title company responsible for processing the
settlement on his newly constructed home.  Because the house was
still not yet ready for occupancy, the settlement was held in
abeyance.  Not until June 30, 1995, was the settlement completed. 


     On August 30, 1995, Mr. Torres submitted a claim for a total
of $4744.30 as reimbursement of expenses incurred in the purchase
of his new home.  The claim was disallowed on the ground that
final settlement had taken place after the maximum period for
settlement had elapsed.  The claimant thereupon requested a
decision by the Comptroller General to determine whether the
agency had acted correctly in denying his claim.  The agency
referred the matter to the General Accounting Office.  

                                Discussion

     The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that the
initial period of entitlement for reimbursement of expenses
incurred in connection with residence transactions is two years
"after the date that the employee reported for duty at the new
official station."  The settlement date for the purchase or sale
of a residence must fall within that period.  On written request,
this two-year period may be extended by the agency head or
his/her designee for an additional period of time "not to exceed
one year."  41 CFR 302-6.1(e)(i), (ii) (1996).  

     Documentation in the record, including Mr. Torres' standard
form 50-B, Notification of Personnel Action, confirms that the
date on which he reported for duty at his new official station in
Miami was March 22, 1992.  The claimant is of the opinion that
because his travel orders were later changed, at his request, to
show a report date of May 1, 1992, this permits him to calculate
the initial two year period and the additional one year extension
for reimbursement of real estate expenses from May 1, 1992,
rather than from March 22, 1992.  This is incorrect.  Regardless
of what the travel orders were eventually amended to state, it is
the actual report date which serves as the starting point for
calculating the period of entitlement.  The FTR expressly states
that the period extends from the "date that the employee reported
for duty at the new official station."  In Mr. Torres' case, this
was and remains March 22.   

     In the final analysis, however, it make little difference
which date is used to determine when the period of entitlement
begins.  Even using the May 1 date, which claimant prefers to
use, settlement did not occur within the three year period.  Mr.
Torres' payment into escrow may have initiated the settlement
process, but settlement did not conclude until well after the
three year period had expired.  Since the settlement date must,
by regulation, occur within the authorized period, the claim was
properly disallowed.

     Claimant asks, in the alternative, that we permit him to
calculate his entitlement period from September 1992 since it was
not until then that he received word that his grievance had been
resolved and that he would be entitled to relocation expenses. 
We find no justification for making such a calculation, for there
is no authority under existing regulations for the reimbursement
of expenses incurred in connection with the sale or purchase of
an employee's home, regardless of the extenuating circumstances
involved, if the employee has failed to meet the applicable time
limitation set out in the regulation.  E.g., Dr. Nathaniel Clark,
GSBCA 14194-RELO, 97-2 BCA  29,055; Linda L. Jeffrey, GSBCA
13963-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,868; John J. Cody, GSBCA 13701-RELO,
97-1 BCA  28,694 (1996).   

     The agency's decision disallowing Mr. Torres's claim is,
therefore, affirmed.  The claim is denied. 




                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge