_____________

                               July 16, 1997
                               _____________


                             GSBCA 14121-RELO


                    In the Matter of DESMOND A. PRIDGEN


    Desmond A. Pridgen, Atlanta, GA, Claimant.

    Tom Stewart, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Department
of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC, appearing for
Department of Housing and Urban Development.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development authorized its
employee, the claimant, Mr. Desmond A. Pridgen, a permanent change
of official duty station from New York City, New York, to Atlanta,
Georgia.  The claimant seeks reimbursement of the amount the agency
disallowed, $2,135.48, for lodging, per diem, and telephone calls
during house hunting and en route travel, and for breaking the
lease at his residence at the old duty station.  The claimant has
demonstrated entitlement to a portion of the sought lease-breaking
expenses, but to no other expenses.

House hunting expenses

    The claimant seeks reimbursement for those portions of his
house hunting expenses the agency disallowed.  The agency prorated
the per diem allowance to determine the reimbursement for the first
day of the trip in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR).  41 CFR 302-4.3(b), 302-2.1, 301-7.8(e) (1996). 
Reimbursement for costs incurred on the eleventh calendar day of a
house hunting trip is not allowed under the FTR: "In no instance
shall the period of the round trip at Government expense be allowed
in excess of 10 calendar days, including travel time."  41 CFR 302-
4.2 (1996).  Accordingly, the agency disallowed reimbursement
associated with calendar day eleven.  The agency appropriately
disallowed reimbursing lodging expenses of $60 per night for those
nights claimant resided with friends.  41 CFR 302-2.1, 301-
7.9(c)(3).  The claimant has failed to demonstrate entitlement to
any money sought in his claim for house hunting expenses.
En route travel expenses

    The claimant seeks to recover those portions of his claimed en
route travel expenses disallowed by the agency.  In accordance with
regulation, 41 CFR 302-2, 301-7.8(d), (e), the agency properly
prorated the per diem because travel did not begin until after six
o'clock in the morning (during the second quarter of the day).  As
with the claimed house hunting expense, the agency appropriately
disallowed reimbursement of lodging expenses of $60 per night for
those nights claimant resided with friends.  41 CFR 302-2.1, 301-
7.9(c)(3).  The claimant has not demonstrated that he was entitled
to reimbursement as an en route travel expense for lodging for the
first night at the new duty station or for telephone calls to a
realtor and lender.  The agency noted in disallowing these two
items that the former could be treated as a temporary quarters
expense and the latter were reimbursed through the miscellaneous
expense allowance.  The claimant has not shown that he is entitled
to any amount sought in this claim for en route travel expenses.

Lease-breaking expenses

    On May 6, 1996, the claimant received his travel orders for
the permanent change of station, with a report date of June 9,
1996.  By June 1, the claimant vacated his apartment, terminating
the lease prior to its expiration date.

    The claimant seeks $1682 in lease-breaking expenses, itemized
as rent for June ($850) and a forfeited security deposit ($832). 
He maintains that, because he received notice of his change of duty
station on May 6, and vacated the apartment prior to the expiration
of the lease, he is entitled to be reimbursed.

    A rider to the lease addresses the security deposit and
departure prior to lease expiration:

         Tenant must inform the Landlord at least 30 days
    prior to vacancy.  Failure to do so, may result in the
    loss of monies due to the Tenant (Ex. security deposit)[.
    A]ny damage found in said apartment will be deducted from
    the security deposit for repairs.  Tenants vacating
    before the expiration of their lease will forfeit the
    security deposit.

    In denying the request for reimbursement of lease-breaking
expenses, the agency references its policy on lease transactions. 
The policy provides that reimbursable lease-breaking expenses may
include lost security deposits, rent paid after the relocatee has
vacated the residence when the relocatee gave timely notice; and
other costs to terminate a lease.  The FTR specifies that each item 
of requested reimbursement for settlement of an unexpired lease
"must be supported by documentation showing that the expense was in
fact incurred and paid by the employee."  41 CFR 302-6.2(h).

    June rent

    The claimant seeks reimbursement for June rent.  As permitted
in the FTR, 41 CFR 302-6.2(h), and reiterated as agency policy on
lease transactions, a reimbursable lease-breaking expense may
include rent paid after the employee has vacated the residence when
the employee gave timely notice.

    The lease permits the claimant to vacate with a thirty-day
notice (and the loss of the security deposit if prior to lease
expiration).  The claimant received notice of his permanent change
of station on May 6, 1996.  With timely notice, the thirty-day
period expired on June 6.  Thus, the claimant was obligated to pay
rent for the first six days of June--the period after vacating the
premises with timely notice.  Six days represents one-fifth of the
month.  The June rent was $850.83.  Claimant is entitled to be
reimbursed $170.17 of the rent he paid for June ($850.83 divided by
5).

    Security deposit

    The agency explains its denial of the requested reimbursement
of the security deposit:

    In your case, your lease states in paragraph 5, "if
    tenant does not pay rent or added rent on time, Landlord
    may use the security to pay for rent and added rent then
    due."  Paragraph 5 also states "If Tenant fully performs
    all terms of this Lease, pays rent on time and leaves the
    Apartment in good condition on the last day of the term,
    then Landlord will return the security being held."  The
    non refund of your lease deposit was not due to the fact
    that you were having to terminate the lease and relocate,
    as is the case in the normal reimbursement of this
    expense.  Your security deposit was used to pay rent in
    arrears which is something that could have been avoided. 
    Had this condition not existed, it is even possible that
    the full amount of the deposit would have been refundable
    under the terms of your lease.

    The claimant maintains that he was not in arrears on his
rental payments.  He asserts that by vacating the apartment prior
to June, with less than thirty-days notice, he forfeited the
security deposit.

    As dictated by the final sentence of the lease rider quoted
above ("Tenants vacating before the expiration of their lease will
forfeit the security deposit"), by vacating prior to the expiration
of the lease, the claimant forfeited the security deposit.  Even if
what the agency asserts is true, that the claimant was in arrears
and therefore could have forfeited his security deposit had the
lease continued to its expiration, that provision did not become
operable.  Because of the departure, accomplished for the benefit
of the Government, the claimant vacated the premises before lease
expiration and forfeited his deposit.  The forfeited security
deposit represents a reimbursable lease-breaking expense.  The
claimant is entitled to reimbursement of $831.83.

    The claimant is entitled to reimbursement of $1002 ($170.17 +
$831.83).



                             ____________________________
                             JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                             Board Judge