___________________________

                               July 31, 1997
                        ___________________________


                             GSBCA 14067-RELO


                    In the Matter of RANDALL L. THURMAN


     Randall L. Thurman, West Monroe, LA, Claimant.

     Susan C. Lauga, Certifying Officer, National Finance Center,
Office of Finance and Management, Department of Agriculture, New
Orleans, LA, appearing for Department of Agriculture.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     Mr. Randall L. Thurman, an employee of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), transferred from one duty station
to another.  USDA reimbursed Mr. Thurman for some, but not all, of
the temporary quarters subsistence expenses he claimed in
connection with the transfer.  USDA asks whether it should
reimburse Mr. Thurman for the remaining amount he claims for
temporary quarters subsistence expenses, or whether it should
recoup all of the amounts it paid to Mr. Thurman.  Because
Mr. Thurman and his family never vacated the residence they
occupied when the transfer occurred, he was not eligible to be
reimbursed for temporary quarters subsistence expenses.  Therefore,
USDA should not reimburse Mr. Thurman for the remaining amount he
claims.  USDA may either recoup the amounts it paid to Mr. Thurman
or waive the debt.

                                   Facts

     On September 9, 1994, USDA issued a travel authorization to
Mr. Thurman in connection with his transfer from West Monroe,
Louisiana to Alexandria, Louisiana.  In the travel authorization,
USDA agreed to reimburse Mr. Thurman for some of the house hunting
expenses he and his wife expected to incur, for transporting two
vehicles to Alexandria, for shipping and storing household goods,
for expenses incurred in selling his house in West Monroe and
purchasing a house in Alexandria, and for temporary quarters
subsistence expenses (TQSE) for Mr. Thurman, his wife, and their
two-year old son.  Mr. Thurman's reporting date in Alexandria was
October 3, 1994.

     On November 30, 1994, Mr. Thurman submitted a travel voucher
to USDA.  Mr. Thurman asked to be reimbursed for $2,087.26 of TQSE
for a thirty-day period running from October 24 through
November 22, 1994.  The TQSE were incurred by Mr. Thurman, his
wife, and their son.  Mr. Thurman claimed no lodging costs for
eight of the thirty days, and no meal costs for five of those eight
days.  Mr. Thurman submitted hotel receipts for twenty-two days.

     USDA decided that Mr. Thurman's family never vacated the
residence in West Monroe, and so USDA determined that Mr. Thurman
was not eligible to be reimbursed for TQSE for his wife and child. 
USDA was willing, however, to reimburse Mr. Thurman for his own
TQSE and advised him to submit a revised voucher for that amount. 
The documents sent to us do not establish that Mr. Thurman ever
submitted a revised voucher.

     On December 22, 1994, Mr. Thurman submitted a second travel
voucher to USDA.  Mr. Thurman asked to be reimbursed $2,087.26 for
his first thirty days of TQSE, as described above, and $2,147.56
for his second thirty days of TQSE, from November 23 through
December 22, 1994.  The TQSE for the second thirty-day period were
incurred by Mr. Thurman, his wife, and their son.  During the
second thirty-day period, Mr. Thurman claimed no lodging costs for
nine days, and no meal costs for five of those nine days. 
Mr. Thurman submitted hotel receipts for twenty-one days.

     Mr. Thurman explained that he and his family returned to their
residence in West Monroe several times during the sixty-day TQSE
period and stayed there on the days for which he did not claim
reimbursement for lodging expenses.  Mr. Thurman stated that he
returned to his residence in West Monroe to take care of his house
and personal matters.  He also said that his wife and son came with
him when he began working in Alexandria because she was expecting
another child and required help with their two-year old son.

     USDA calculated that the total amount of TQSE attributable to
Mr. Thurman for the sixty-day period was $2,887.50.  USDA paid this
amount to Mr. Thurman.

     Mr. Thurman submitted a third travel voucher to USDA on
February 14, 1995.  He asked to be reimbursed for $1,045.12 for
forty-six days of TQSE, from December 27, 1994, through
February 10, 1995, for expenses he alone incurred.  During this
period, Mr. Thurman claimed no lodging costs for twenty-three days
and no meal costs for sixteen of those days.  Mr. Thurman rented a
room for the remaining twenty-three days.  Although USDA approved
the final forty-six day extension to Mr. Thurman s TQSE period,
there is nothing in the record explaining why the extension was
necessary.

     USDA approved none of the amount requested by Mr. Thurman on
his third voucher because the voucher did not explain why there had
been a break between Mr. Thurman's first sixty days of TQSE, which
ended on December 22, 1994, and his forty-six day TQSE period,
which began on December 27, 1994.  Mr. Thurman explained that
December 23 was not a work day for him because he worked a
compressed schedule, December 24 and 25 were weekend days, and
December 26 was a holiday.  He explained that he spent those days
at his house in West Monroe, and that he went home during the
forty-six day TQSE period in order to be with his wife and to help
with their son.  USDA paid the $1,045.12.  

     Due to a reorganization within USDA, Mr. Thurman was
transferred to Columbia, Louisiana, which is thirty miles from West
Monroe.  Mr. Thurman continues to reside in his house in West
Monroe.

     USDA asks us to answer two questions pursuant to the authority
conferred by 31 U.S.C.  3529 (1994).  First, USDA asks whether it
should pay Mr. Thurman the amount withheld from his December 22,
1994 voucher for the initial sixty-day TQSE period.  Second, USDA
asks whether it should recoup all of the amounts it paid to
Mr. Thurman.

                                Discussion

     When an employee is transferred from one duty station to
another, the employing agency may reimburse the employee for the
subsistence expenses of the employee and his immediate family for
sixty days while they occupy temporary quarters.  5 U.S.C.  5724a
(1994).  The term  temporary quarters  means lodging obtained for
the purpose of temporary occupancy after vacating the residence
occupied when the transfer was authorized.  41 CFR 302-5.2(c)
(1995).

     A residence is vacated by an employee and his family when they
stop occupying it for the purposes intended.  In deciding whether
a residence has been vacated, we will look at all of the facts and
circumstances and see whether there is objective evidence
demonstrating the employee s intent to vacate the residence.  Karl
A. Hoglund, GSBCA 13716-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,716 (1996).

     Mr. Thurman says that the September 9, 1994 travel
authorization, which states that he will be reimbursed for moving,
storage, and real estate sales and purchase expenses, evidences his
intent to vacate his house in West Monroe.  Mr. Thurman s travel
authorization simply explains what USDA would do if Mr. Thurman
relocated and incurred certain expenses, and is not an expression
of Mr. Thurman s intentions.  Reviewing the record as a whole, we
find no evidence that Mr. Thurman intended to vacate his house in
West Monroe.  Although many kinds of facts could establish an
intent to vacate, none is present here.  For example, there is no
evidence that Mr. Thurman ever listed his house in West Monroe for
sale or rent, or that he made an effort to purchase or rent a house
in Alexandria.  He never moved any of his furniture to Alexandria. 
In order to care for his home and to take care of personal matters,
Mr. Thurman and his family returned to their home in West Monroe on
days when Mr. Thurman did not work.  He returned to West Monroe in
between the first sixty-day TQSE period and the subsequent forty-
six day TQSE period.  Further, after the first sixty-day TQSE
period, Mr. Thurman s family remained in their home in West Monroe
and Mr. Thurman spent half of his time there.  There is no
indication that Mr. Thurman and his family intended to vacate their
home in West Monroe when the initial sixty-day TQSE period began or
at any later time.

     Because Mr. Thurman and his family never vacated their
residence in West Monroe, he was not eligible to be reimbursed for
the first sixty days of TQSE.  Therefore, USDA should not reimburse
Mr. Thurman for the remaining TQSE amounts that he claims for the
initial sixty-day TQSE period.

     Mr. Thurman was not eligible to be reimbursed for the final
forty-six days of TQSE because he and his family never vacated
their residence in West Monroe, as discussed above, and because
there was no justification for extending the TQSE period beyond the
initial sixty days.  An agency may extend the period of residence
in temporary quarters for more than sixty days, up to an additional
sixty days, if the agency determines that there are compelling
reasons for continuing to occupy the temporary quarters.  5 U.S.C.
 5724a (1994).  Extensions beyond the initial sixty-day period are
authorized only when there is a demonstrated need for added time
due to circumstances which arose during the initial sixty days and
which are beyond the employee s control.  41 CFR 302-5.2(a)(2). 
There are no facts to show that anything happened during the first
sixty days of Mr. Thurman s TQSE period which was beyond his
control and which caused him to need an added forty-six days of
temporary quarters.

     Mr. Thurman asks us to consider that his supervisor knew that
he was returning home to West Monroe during the TQSE periods and
his supervisor approved reimbursing Mr. Thurman for all of the TQSE
he claimed.  The fact that Mr. Thurman s supervisor was willing to
authorize reimbursement for claimed TQSE does not influence our
decision.  Whether Mr. Thurman can be reimbursed depends upon the
provisions of applicable statutes and regulations, and
Mr. Thurman s supervisor does not have the authority to approve an
expenditure of public funds in a manner contrary to those statutes
and regulations.

     We cannot decide for USDA whether it should recoup the amounts
it reimbursed Mr. Thurman for TQSE.  USDA may, if it wishes, recoup
the amounts it paid, because Mr. Thurman was not eligible to be
reimbursed for TQSE, as explained above.  USDA may also, if it
wishes, decide to waive the debt.  The authority to waive a debt is
granted by 5 U.S.C.  5584 (1994) and applies in cases where the
collection of a claim against an employee arising out of an
erroneous payment of relocation expenses would be contrary to
equity and good conscience.  This authority, insofar as it pertains
to claims affecting the executive branch of Government, was
transferred from the Comptroller General to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Pub. L. No. 104-316, 
 103(d)(3), 110 Stat. 3826, 3828 (1996).  On December 17, 1996,
the Director of OMB delegated this authority to the agencies from
which the original claims arose, in this case USDA.  USDA could
decide that it is appropriate to consider the actions taken by
Mr. Thurman s supervisor when it decides whether to grant
Mr. Thurman a waiver.  If USDA concludes that it would be contrary
to equity and good conscience to collect the amounts it paid to
Mr. Thurman, it may exercise its authority to waive the debt.




                                   _______________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge