June 20, 1997 GSBCA 14099-RELO In the Matter of WILLIAM T. STOWERS William T. Stowers, Bedford, IN, Claimant. G. Edward Hafling, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Louisville, KY, appearing for Department of the Navy. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, William T. Stowers, is a civilian employee of the Department of the Navy. He has requested review of a decision made by the agency to deny his request for extension of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) related to a permanent change of station (PCS) move from Kentucky to Indiana. Claimant requested payment of $6,815.36 in TQSE incurred during the period for which the extension was denied. After closing on the sale of his residence in Kentucky on May 24, 1996, claimant arranged to lease his former residence from the new owners for fifty-six days in order to use that period to make arrangements for constructing a new home at the new duty station. He agreed to report to the new duty station on August 5, 1996. Before signing the construction contract on June 20, 1996, for the new residence, claimant filed preliminary documentation for financing of the construction and permanent financing. On July 13, 1996, claimant moved out of his residence and began the initial TQSE period. His loans were approved on July 17, 1996, and construction of the new residence began immediately. Completion of the construction was projected at that time to occur on October 30, 1996. Claimant's TQSE allowance was interrupted from July 27, 1996, to August 3, 1996, due to temporary duty. The initial TQSE period of sixty days therefore expired on September 18, 1996. Claimant requested an extension of the TQSE period for the period September 18, 1996 to November 16, 1996. Apparently, claimant found it necessary to continue to occupy temporary quarters during this period, as construction was not complete. Under 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(3) (1994), implementing regulations found in the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 CFR pt. 302-5 (1996), and the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), applicable to federal civilian employees of the Department of Defense, a transferred employee may be reimbursed subsistence expenses while occupying temporary quarters. The JTR reads, in relevant part: C13004 TIME LIMITATIONS A. TQSE Allowance 1. Initial Period of TQSE Allowance. Except as provided in subpar. 2, TQSE for the employee and dependents will be authorized for a period not to exceed 60 consecutive days. Temporary quarters subsistence expenses should be authorized only as an expedient and only for the period of time that occupancy of temporary quarters is actually necessary. 2. Additional Period of Temporary Quarters. Subsistence expenses as provided in subpar. 1 may be allowed for an additional period of time not to exceed 60 consecutive days provided the head of the DOD component concerned or his/her designee determines there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters. . . . Extensions of the temporary quarters may be authorized only in situations where there is a demonstrated need for additional time in temporary quarters due to circumstances which have occurred during the initial 60-day period of temporary quarters occupancy and which are determined to be beyond the employee's control and acceptable to the DOD components concerned. Examples of compelling reasons which could be considered beyond the employee's control for purposes of granting this extension may include, but are not limited to, the following situations: . . . . b. new permanent residence cannot be occupied because of unanticipated problems (i.e., delays in settlement on new residence, short term delay in construction of new residence, etc.); The agency's determination to extend the TQSE period is an exercise of discretion. This Board will not overturn the agency's exercise of discretion unless that exercise of discretion was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Holly Rowe, GSBCA 14037-RELO (Mar. 31, 1997). The agency found that there was no basis to extend the TQSE period, as no circumstances arose during the initial sixty-day period which were determined to be beyond the control of the employee. The construction of the new residence had not commenced by July 13, 1996, when claimant moved out of his residence and commenced TQSE, since he had not received approval of the construction and permanent loans. On July 17, 1996, the loans were approved, and construction of the new residence commenced. At that time, according to claimant, construction of the new residence was projected to be complete on October 30, 1996. Thus, when the employee began TQSE, the claimant knew that the anticipated period of construction extended past the expiration of the original TQSE period. There is no contention by claimant that any delays occurred during the construction of the residence. For an extension of TQSE to be granted, the regulation requires that circumstances justifying such extension must arise during the initial sixty-day period. Under circumstances similar to those in this case, when an employee has commenced the initial TQSE period knowing that the scheduled completion of his newly constructed residence was a date after the initial sixty-day period expires, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has held that there were no events that arose during the initial sixty-day period to justify an extension of the TQSE period. Paul E. Storer, 67 Comp. Gen. 567 (1988); Arthur P. Meister, B-22884 (Sept. 23, 1987). Similarly, in Thomas M. Hood, GSBCA 13845-RELO (Apr. 18, 1997), decided recently by this Board, when a claimant alleged unanticipated delays in construction of a residence, but failed to prove that such delays occurred within the initial sixty-day period for TQSE, we denied claimant's request to extend the TQSE period. Claimant cites us to the decision in Natalie A. Finholm, B-258006 (June 15, 1995), as support for entitlement to an extension of the TQSE period. In that case, the claimant's home was ready for occupancy at the beginning of the initial TQSE period, and settlement was scheduled for a date after the expiration of the initial period. Delays beyond her control in obtaining approval of financing during the initial period justified an extension of the TQSE period. The GAO held that the scheduling of the settlement for a date after the expiration of the initial period was not, by itself, a reason to deny an extension as the result of other compelling circumstances. In the instant case, claimant did not obtain approval of the construction and permanent loans for several weeks after executing the construction contract, but received approval of the loans four days after beginning TQSE. There is no contention that delays occurred in the construction process. Thus, no compelling reason occurred in the initial period to grant an extension. Accordingly, there is no basis to grant Mr. Stowers' claim, as the agency's determination to deny an extension of the TQSE period was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor contrary to law. _______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge