______________ April 9, 1997 ______________ GSBCA 14016-RELO In the Matter of LAWRENCE O. WILLIAM Lawrence O. William, Schiller Park, IL, Claimant. Carolyn Dunn, Financial Policy and Administrative Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Transportation. VERGILIO, Board Judge. The claimant, Mr. Lawrence O. William, seeks reimbursement of claimed expenses relating to a permanent change of station. The agency reimbursed the claimant for an initial period of temporary quarters subsistence expense (TQSE), for both him and his wife. In reviewing a reimbursement request for an extended period of TQSE, the agency concluded that the claimant had not sold his residence at the old duty station and that the claimant's wife had returned to their residence at the old duty station during the extended period. The agency denied reimbursement of TQSE for her for the extended TQSE period and concluded that it had overpaid the initial TQSE claim, because, with the old residence not sold, there was no entitlement to TQSE for the wife. The lack of sale of the residence is not relevant to entitlement to TQSE; both the claimant and his wife vacated the old residence; the claimant maintains that they did not reside there during the TQSE period. Mr. William is entitled to allowable reimbursement of actual expenses incurred while in temporary quarters, for both him and his wife. However, the existing submissions are not determinative of entitlement. In order to recover, Mr. William must make additional submissions, and the agency must review the materials and make determinations as to whether or not costs were actually incurred incident to the occupancy of temporary quarters and the reasonableness of claimed costs. In conjunction with a permanent change of station from Indiana to Illinois, the agency authorized TQSE for Mr. William and his wife, while occupying temporary quarters, for a period not to exceed sixty days. Beginning on October 31, 1994, Mr. William claims that he and his wife occupied temporary quarters at the new duty station, having vacated their residence at the old duty station. Mr. William states that he rented out his home and turned over the keys on October 31. Mr. William has sought and been reimbursed for claimed TQSE (for him and his wife) beginning on that date and continuing through (and inclusive of) December 30, 1994. He has claimed no TQSE for Sunday, November 27. After receiving an extension of thirty-days for TQSE, Mr. William submitted an itemization of actual expenses, seeking $1551 for him and his wife. This amount reflects twenty days for the employee and seventeen days for his wife. The days utilized are December 31, 1994, through January 12, 1995, and January 18 through 24, 1995, all inclusive. On weekends and holidays the Williams returned to the vicinity of the old duty station. Mrs. William departed the new duty station and stayed with her mother at some point in January. There exist discrepancies and unanswered questions in the submissions made by Mr. William in support of his claimed reimbursement. The period of TQSE must involve consecutive days, 41 CFR 302- 5.2(a) (1996) (there is no indication that any interruptions in this case were for reasons that would toll the consecutive requirement). Given the start date of October 31, the initial sixty-day period ended with December 29. Mr. William may not be reimbursed for unclaimed and unsubstantiated expenses for November 27, although that date falls within the initial TQSE period. The bills for the temporary quarters at the new duty station specify the "number of guests" as one, not two. Hence, it is unclear if, or when, Mrs. William resided in the temporary quarters at the new duty station. A determination of the actually incurred costs, and who may have incurred them, is necessary for reimbursability. Further, to the extent that temporary quarters were occupied at a location other than the old or new duty station, payment of subsistence expenses is not allowed, absent appropriate authorization and approval. 41 CFR 302-5.2(d). Further, for lodging, Mr. William has requested and been reimbursed more than his actual costs. For the first twenty-nine days in temporary quarters, he was originally charged a city tax and a state occupancy tax. However, he received a credit in excess of those amounts before he submitted his request for payment. He is not entitled to be reimbursed for lodging at more than his actual expenses. He appears to have been overpaid $153.12 (29 days x $5.28). Mr. William has also claimed reimbursement for actual subsistence expenses for laundry (coin operated). An amount ($4, $5, $6, or $7 for the first two thirty-day periods; $2, $3, $4, $6, or $7 for the third thirty-day period) is claimed for every day he seeks reimbursement for temporary quarters; on his claim sheet, many amounts have been adjusted upward, with a corresponding adjustment in the daily total claimed. If presently (or after further submission) the agency lacks an explanation and proof that the claimant, in fact, incurred such amounts and reasonably did so, the claimant may retain no amounts already paid. Regulation establishes maximums for reimbursable daily amounts. An employee is not automatically entitled to the maximum amount. All claimed expenses must be incurred, must be incident to occupancy of temporary quarters, must be reasonable, and may need to be supported by receipts. 41 CFR 302-5.4. TQSE reimbursement is different from temporary duty (TDY) travel, under which an employee receives a fixed daily allowance for meals and incidental expenses, regardless of the costs incurred (reasonable or not). 41 CFR 301-7.3 (1996). The agency could determine that the request for laundry costs is not reasonable, on its face, without further explanation and support. Further, the meal costs are not necessarily reasonable if meals were consumed at the homes of family or friends, particularly when away from the old and new duty stations. The agency may seek credit card receipts or billing statements, or cancelled checks or evidence of bank withdrawals to substantiate the claimed amounts. The agency has concluded that Mr. William is entitled to no TQSE reimbursement for his wife because he did not sell the residence at the old duty station and his wife returned to that residence during the TQSE period. As noted, these bases for denying payment are inconsistent with regulation and the facts established by the submissions. Having vacated the residence at the old duty station, both Mr. and Mrs. William were eligible to recover TQSE, for reasonable costs actually incurred incident to the occupancy of temporary quarters. In light of the guidance found in the regulations and herein, the agency must make the appropriate determinations and calculations. ____________________________ JOSEPH A. VERGILIO Board Judge