_________________________

                             September 9, 1997
                         _________________________


                             GSBCA 13968-RELO


                   In the matter of DARRELL M. THRASHER


     Darrell M. Thrasher, APO, AA, Claimant.

     Linda Dobbs-Wilson, Policy and Program Development Division,
Office of the Assistant Secretary, Manpower and Reserve Affairs,
Department of the Army, appearing for Department of Defense.

PARKER, Board Judge.
     
     Darrell M. Thrasher, an employee of the Department of the
Army, requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) reconsider
its decision denying his claim for permanent change of station
(PCS) expenses.  Mr. Thrasher's request for reconsideration was
subsequently transferred to this Board.  For the reasons discussed
below, we affirm GAO's decision and deny Mr. Thrasher's request for
reconsideration.

                                Background

     Mr. Thrasher was employed by the Department of the Army as a
telecommunications specialist at the White Sands Missile Range in
New Mexico when he responded to an Army civilian job opportunity
announcement for a position at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  The
announcement to which Mr. Thrasher responded stated that relocation
expenses would not be paid and that PCS expenses would be the
responsibility of the selectee.  According to the Army, Mr.
Thrasher also was advised orally that PCS expenses would not be
paid by the Government.

     Upon his selection, Mr. Thrasher was contacted by a recruiter
from Fort Sam Houston who offered him the job and faxed him a "DA
Employment and Mobility Agreement."  The agreement, which contained
various information about location of duty, grade levels and
promotion potential, also contained several pre-printed
"boilerplate" provisions.  Contained in one such provision was the
following statement:

          . . . initial PCS benefits will be provided
          under controlling regulations.

     Mr. Thrasher's claim for relocation expenses was denied by the
Army, and the Army's denial was affirmed by GAO.  Darrell M.
Thrasher, B-259960 (Sept. 21, 1995). 

                                 Decision

     The payment of travel, transportation, and relocation expenses
is authorized under 5 U.S.C.  5724 and 5724a (1994), as
implemented by the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and
supplemented by Volume 2 of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) for
civilian employees of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
military departments.  Generally, where an agency recruits or
requests an employee to transfer to a different location, such a
transfer is regarded as being in the interest of the Government and
PCS expenses are payable.  However, as GAO explained:

          an agency may issue regulations concerning
          relocation expenses and merit promotions
          setting forth guidelines as to the specific
          conditions and factors to be considered in
          determining whether relocation expenses will
          be paid and that any such information must be
          clearly communicated in advance and in writing
          to all applicants, preferably by a statement
          on the vacancy announcement.

Thrasher at 2; see also Earl G. Gongloff, GSBCA 13680-RELO, 97-1
BCA  28,792.  

     GAO found that DoD had issued such regulations in section
C4100 of the JTR.  The regulations require DoD components to
determine, taking into account the rights of employees and the
prudent use of appropriated funds, whether PCS allowances will be
offered.  If PCS allowances are not offered, i.e., the transfer is
deemed to be primarily in the interest of the employee, not the
Government, the component must inform the selectee of this
determination.  GAO held that the JTR provisions, combined with the
express statement in the vacancy announcement that PCS expenses
would not be paid, satisfied applicable requirements.  With regard
to the statement in the Mobility Agreement that "initial PCS
benefits will be provided under controlling regulations," GAO held
that, since the "controlling regulations" are the JTR provisions
which establish agency discretion in determining when to pay PCS
expenses, the phrase in the Mobility Agreement did not establish a
right to payment of those expenses.

     We think GAO was correct in affirming the Army's decision to
deny the claim.  DoD's decision not to offer PCS expenses in
connection with this recruitment action was made in accordance with
regulations that provide DoD with discretion in deciding whether to
offer PCS expenses.  There is no indication in the record that DoD
abused that discretion in deciding not to offer PCS expenses here. 
In accordance with those same regulations, the decision not to
offer PCS expenses was communicated to Mr. Thrasher, both orally
and in writing through the vacancy announcement.  Under these
circumstances, the boilerplate statement in the Mobility Agreement
that PCS benefits would be provided under "controlling regulations"
was at best ambiguous and could not, by itself, create a right to
reimbursement.

                                 Decision

     The motion for reconsideration is denied.




                                   ________________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge