________________________________________ September 11, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14059-RELO In the Matter of DUDLEY L. REESE Dudley L. Reese, San Diego, CA, Claimant. Lou Pohlenz, PCS Review Officer/Real Estate Relocation Allowance Authorization Official, Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, appearing for Department of the Navy. BORWICK, Board Judge. Claimant, Dudley L. Reese, submitted a claim challenging the Department of the Navy's (Navy's) denial of eligibility for reimbursement of expenses of selling his house. Claimant incurred the expenses in October of 1996. The agency determined that the eligibility period expired on July 31, 1996. Claimant maintains that the eligibility period in fact ended on November 1, 1996. We agree with the claimant that the agency erred in establishing the end of the eligibility period as July 31, 1996. The two-year eligibility period ended on November 1, 1995, which is the second anniversary of the date claimant reported for duty at his new station. JTR C14000-B. The one-year extension of the eligibility period, granted by the agency, ran until November 1, 1996. Claimant is not barred from reimbursement of allowable and reasonable expenses of sale because the settlement occurred before the end of the three-year eligibility period. We return the matter to the agency to consider whether the claimed expenses are allowable and reasonable. The facts are as follows. Claimant was employed by the Navy Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center (NCCOSC), RDT&E Division, in Los Angeles, California, and was working at the United States Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. On July 19, 1993, the agency issued a permanent change of station (PCS) travel authorization for claimant's reassignment to the NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, California. The authorization provided for reimbursement of real estate expenses and established July 31, 1993, as claimant's reporting date to the new station. Claimant, however, did not move to San Diego on July 31; instead, he remained in Los Angeles pursuant to a "no cost" temporary duty (TDY) order, performing the same work he had performed previous to July 31. Although the TDY order stated that the "temporary duty" would last for no longer than ninety-two days, claimant believed that he would remain indefinitely in the Los Angeles area working at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. He therefore took no steps after July 31 to sell his residence. On October 29, the agency informed claimant that due to an unanticipated funding shortfall, he would be reassigned to San Diego and, on November 1, claimant actually reported to San Diego for duty. After his transfer, claimant immediately attempted to sell his house. He could not complete a sale due to a depressed market. On July 26, 1995, claimant sought a one-year extension of eligibility for reimbursement of real estate expenses, noting that he reported to work in San Diego on November 1, 1993. The agency granted the one-year extension, but established a reporting date at the new duty station of "31 July 93," instead of November 1, 1993, the date claimant actually had reported at the new station. Claimant eventually sold his house; the settlement date was October 16, 1996. Claimant had incurred real estate transaction expenses and, on November 15, 1996, submitted a claim to the agency for reimbursement of $20,115 of those expenses. The agency denied the claim in its entirety, and argues here that "[claimant's] not being physically transferred to San Diego . . . until 1 November 93 does not delay the initial two (2) year time line for real estate reimbursement." The agency argues that the one-year extension ended on July 31, 1996. The JTR provides "the settlement dates for the sale and purchase . . . transactions for which reimbursement is requested must not be later than 2 years after the date that the employee reported for duty at the new [permanent duty station]." JTR C14000-B. Although worded somewhat differently, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) is to the same effect. 41 CFR 302-6.1(e)(1) (1994)(FTR 302-6.1(e)(11). Other sections of the FTR emphasize the importance of the reporting date at the new station. The FTR, for example, defines "effective date of transfer or appointment" as "the date on which the employee . . . reports for duty at his/her new. . . official station." FTR 302-1.4(l). The General Accounting Office (GAO) held that an employee, who received PCS transfer orders from Washington, D.C. to Cincinnati, Ohio, but remained on detail in Washington, did not change his permanent duty station until his detail ended and he actually reported for duty in Cincinnati. Absent exceptional circumstances, therefore, the employee was ineligible for TDY expenses in Washington since he was not on temporary duty. He was eligible for temporary quarters subsistence expenses, moreover, with the thirty day period for beginning use of temporary quarters keyed to the date he reported for duty in Cincinnati. John E. Higgins, Jr., B- 248893, et al., (Aug, 29, 1995). Here, it is evident that until his physical reassignment to San Diego on November 1, claimant's permanent duty station was in Los Angeles at the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. Claimant reported for duty at his new duty station in San Diego on November 1, 1993, which was claimant's effective date of transfer as defined by the FTR. Claimant's two-year period of eligibility for real estate transactions began on November 1, 1993, and ended on November 1, 1995. Claimant was granted a one-year extension, thus the extension ended on November 1, 1996. Because the settlement date for the sale of claimant's house was not more than three years after claimant reported for duty, claimant is entitled to receive allowable and reasonable expenses of the sale. The agency has not considered whether the items claimed are otherwise allowable; this matter is returned to the agency for that determi nation. _________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge