Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


                      _____________________

                         December 11, 1997
                      ______________________


                         GSBCA 14077-RELO


              In the Matter of RALPH R. BOKERN, JR.


     Ralph R. Bokern, Jr., Angier, NC, Claimant.

     David R. Forbes, Mid-Atlantic Area Counsel, Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Department
of the Navy, Portsmouth, VA, appearing for Department of the Navy.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Ralph R. Bokern, Jr., an employee of the Department of the Navy, was transferred
from Charleston, South Carolina to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He reported for duty at Fort
Bragg on May 2, 1994.  Prior to the transfer, Mr. Bokern was advised in writing that he
would be reimbursed certain expenses incurred in purchasing a home at the new duty station
if he settled on his new home within two years of the time he reported for duty, or within
three years of that time if he were granted an extension.

     Mr. Bokern, whose family had stayed in Charleston so that his wife could finish
college, did not purchase a home at his new duty station within the two-year period.  After
several attempts to contact the appropriate personnel, Mr. Bokern requested an extension of
the two-year period on June 17, 1996 -- two years and forty-six days after he reported for
duty at Fort Bragg.  According to Mr. Bokern, he asked for the extension shortly after
learning of the reimbursement program.

     The Navy denied the request for extension as untimely.  According to the Navy, the
Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) require that a request for extension of the two-year period be
made no later than thirty days after the two-year period expires, unless the thirty-day period
has been extended by the commanding officer based upon extenuating circumstances.  The
commanding officer did not find that such extenuating circumstances existed in this case.

                            Discussion

     As the Navy points out, Section C14000-B of the JTR provides as follows:


               Time Limitations on Residence or Lease Termination
          Transactions.  Except as provided herein, the settlement dates
          for the sale and purchase or lease termination 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
          PDS [permanent duty station]. . . . The 2-year period begins with
          the day following the date the employee reports for duty and
          ends on the second anniversary of the reporting date. . . . Upon
          an employee's written request, the 2-year time limitation for
          completion of the sale and purchase or lease termination
          transactions may be extended by the commanding officer of the
          activity bearing the cost, or his/her designee for an additional
          period of time not to exceed 1 year.  The employee's written
          request should be submitted to the appropriate authority as soon
          as the employee becomes aware of the need for an extension but
          before expiration of the 2-year limitation; however, in no case
          will the request be submitted later than 30 calendar days after
          the expiration date unless this 30-day period is specifically
          extended by the commanding officer of the activity bearing the
          cost.  Approval of the additional period of time will be based on
          a determination that extenuating circumstances, acceptable to
          the commanding officer of the activity concerned . . . have
          previously prevented the employee from completing the sale and
          purchase or lease termination transactions in the initial time-
          frame and that the residence transactions are reasonably related
          to the PCS.

     Mr. Bokern did not request an extension of time for purchasing a new residence
during the prescribed period for requesting such extensions.  The record shows that the
primary reason for Mr. Bokern's failure to request an extension in a timely fashion was that
he was unaware of the benefits to which he was entitled.  Although this is unfortunate, given
the fact that the Navy had advised Mr. Bokern in writing as to these benefits, the ultimate
responsibility for the untimely request must fall on Mr. Bokern.  We are also sympathetic to
Mr. Bokern's plight in attempting to find the right person to whom to direct the request for
an extension.  That said, however, we are unable to say that the Navy abused its discretion
in determining that no "extenuating circumstances acceptable to the commanding officer .
. . have previously prevented the employee from completing the sale and purchase . . .
transactions in the initial time-frame."  JTR C14000-2.

                             Decision

     The claim is denied.




                                   ____________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge