____________________

                             February 13, 1997
                           ____________________



                             GSBCA 13980-RELO


                  In the Matter of CHRISTOPHER A. HAUBERT


     Christopher A. Haubert, Fairfield, PA, Claimant.

     Dennis J. Fischer, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the
Chief Financial Officer, General Services Administration,
Washington, DC, appearing for General Services Administration.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     In February 1995, Christopher A. Haubert was relocated by the
General Services Administration (GSA) from Osan Air Base, Korea, to
Johnstown, Pennsylvania.  GSA determined that because Johnstown was
not his home of record, Mr. Haubert was eligible for reimbursement
for residence transaction expenses.  After Mr. Haubert entered
into a contract to buy a home in Pennsylvania, but before going to
closing, GSA advised him that he was being transferred to
Germantown, Maryland.  Upon learning of this latest relocation,
Mr. Haubert declined to complete the home purchase transaction in
Pennsylvania. 

     Mr. Haubert is seeking reimbursement for the following
expenses: (a) $200 for an appraisal fee; (b) $45 for a credit
report for a loan application;  (c) $460 to reimburse a real estate
broker for taking him to see the house and for calling and faxing
information to him during January and February 1995; (d) $1,000 for
a forfeited home deposit; and (e) $3,500 for certain improvements
to the home that were made by the seller at Mr. Haubert's request,
including the purchase of a gas oven and installation of a gas
feed, purchase of a refrigerator, purchase and installation of a
garage door opener, installation of a range hood, fan and light,
and services of a painter. 

     Dennis J. Fischer, Chief Financial Officer, General Services
Administration, asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) whether
GSA may reimburse Mr. Haubert for these expenses.  As explained
below, GSA may reimburse Mr. Haubert for some, but not all, of
these expenses.

     GAO has held that, generally, where the purchase of a
residence by a transferred employee is not completed because of a
retransfer in the interest of the Government, the employee may be
reimbursed to the extent that the items of expense incurred by him
are otherwise authorized by the FTR.  Frank A. Limpouch, B-162274
(Sept. 11, 1967).  This rule is an appropriate one to apply in Mr.
Haubert's case because Mr. Haubert would have completed the
purchase of the house in Pennsylvania, but for GSA s actions.  Mr.
Haubert may be reimbursed for the cost of the appraisal fee and the
credit report, because  reimbursement for these expenses is
authorized by the FTR.  41 CFR 302-6.2(b), (d)(1)(iii). 
Mr. Haubert, however, may not be reimbursed for the broker s
charges, because there is nothing in the record to establish that
Mr. Haubert is obligated to pay these charges.  Even if Mr. Haubert
is obligated to pay the charges, if the charges are considered a
fee, Mr. Haubert may not be reimbursed because broker s fees are
not reimbursable in connection with the purchase of a home at a new
official station.  41 CFR 302-6.2(a).

     GAO has also held that where an employee was in the process of
purchasing a new residence incident to a transfer and was prevented
from completing the purchase transaction by a second transfer in
the interest of the Government, the employee may be reimbursed for
a forfeited earnest money deposit as a miscellaneous expense
pursuant to 41 CFR 302-3.  55 Comp. Gen. 628 (1976).  Applying this
rule, GSA may reimburse Mr. Haubert for the loss of his deposit.

     Finally, there is no basis for reimbursement of the remainder
of the costs claimed by Mr. Haubert, either as miscellaneous
expenses or as residence transaction expenses.  There is no
suggestion that Mr. Haubert is liable to the seller for the costs
incurred by the seller for improvements to the seller s own
property.  If Mr. Haubert were liable for these improvements, then
he would presumably also take title to them, and any loss would
result from the impracticability of selling or disposing of his own
property.  Such a loss is precluded from reimbursement as a
miscellaneous expense according to 41 CFR 302-3.1(c)(9).  These
expenses cannot be allowed as residence transaction expenses,
because Mr. Haubert could not have been reimbursed for them had the
sale been completed. 






                              ___________________________________
                              MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                              Board Judge