_______________________________ September 11, 1997 _______________________________ GSBCA 14132-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS J. LIEBSCHER Thomas J. Liebscher, Wasilla, AK, Claimant. Harlan Smid, Director of Financial Resources, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Missoula, MT, appearing for Department of Agriculture. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Because claimant was notified within the time period allowed for completing his residence sale transaction that he was being transferred back to his former duty station, the agency's obligation to reimburse him for residence sale expenses was limited to the expenses already incurred and those which could not be avoided. Background In December 1992, Thomas J. Liebscher, an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), transferred from Montana to Alaska and bought a house in Wasilla, Alaska. Mr. Liebscher was employed according to the terms of an Intergovernmental Personnel Act agreement that was scheduled to expire on September 30, 1996. Mr. Liebscher told USDA that he would like to stay in Alaska after September 30, 1996, or find a position in Montana so that one of his sons could participate in organized hockey there, which Mr. Liebscher explained was necessary to his son s good health. USDA was unable to find a position for Mr. Liebscher in either Montana or Alaska. In early 1996, USDA offered Mr. Liebscher a position in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Coeur d Alene, Idaho. Mr. Liebscher declined that offer because the nearest organized hockey program was thirty miles away and he said that the location did not meet the needs of his family. In April 1996, USDA told Mr. Liebscher that it was directing his reassignment to the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, effective June 23, 1996. USDA reminded Mr. Liebscher that his assignment in Alaska was due to expire on September 30, 1996, and explained that placement opportunities were very limited due to significant workforce reductions. USDA said that it would pay for transportation and travel expenses in accordance with applicable regulations. USDA told Mr. Liebscher that he could either accept the directed reassignment, resign, or be placed in absent without leave status. Mr. Liebscher asked USDA whether he could work in Idaho and live 170 miles away in Montana, and whether USDA would pay for temporary quarters there while he looked for a new house. Mr. Liebscher explained that he intended to keep trying to secure a position in Montana. USDA agreed to Mr. Liebscher s request, and Mr. Liebscher moved to Montana and reported for duty in Idaho on August 5, 1996. In November 1996, Mr. Liebscher accepted a position with the Department of Defense (DoD) and transferred from Montana back to Alaska. The position that Mr. Liebscher accepted with DoD is at a lower pay grade than was his position with USDA, and Mr. Liebscher said that he could no longer afford the mortgage payments for the Wasilla house. Mr. Liebscher also cited other personal reasons for wanting to leave this house. After Mr. Liebscher accepted the position with DoD, he contracted to sell his house in Wasilla. The sale was completed in January 1997, and Mr. Liebscher asked USDA to reimburse him for his share of the expenses incurred in connection with the sale. USDA decided not to reimburse Mr. Liebscher because he sold the house in Wasilla after he transferred back to Alaska. Mr. Liebscher asks that we review USDA s decision not to reimburse him for his residence sale expenses. He also asks to be reimbursed for the following expenses: - buying a house in Alaska - shipping a truck from Alaska to Montana - renting a U-Haul to go from Montana to Alaska - gasoline for the U-Haul and a private rig - meals for trips from Montana to Alaska - airline tickets - increased legal fees resulting from being in Montana and not in Alaska - house rental in Montana - vehicle repairs needed to return to Alaska - damages for emotional and medical impacts to his family As far as we can tell, Mr. Liebscher never asked USDA to reimburse him for any expenses, other than his residence sale expenses. Discussion When an employee transfers from one official station to another for permanent duty, the agency is authorized to reimburse the employee for expenses of the sale of the residence of the employee "at the old station . . . required to be paid" by the employee. 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4)(A) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation, which implements this statute, explains that an employee must sell a residence within two years (which an agency may extend to three years) after reporting at the new duty station in order to be reimbursed for residence sale expenses. 41 CFR 302- 6.1(e) (1996). Neither the statute nor the regulation explains whether an employee can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with the sale of a residence at the old duty station, if the employee transfers back to the old duty station and then sells the residence. Clearly, reimbursing such employees is not in keeping with the purpose of the statute, which is "to help pay the cost of moving to the new place of employment." The statute is designed to authorize payment of expenses "incident to transfer from the old to the new station" so that "employees will not have to incur financial losses when transferred at the request of the Government." S. Rep. No. 1357, 89th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2-4, reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2565-67. Faced with claims similar to this one, we have decided that, if an employee was notified within the time period allowed for completing residence transactions that he was being transferred back to his former duty station, the agency's obligation to reimburse him for residence sale expenses was limited to the expenses already incurred and those which could not be avoided. D. Larry Fraser, GSBCA 14034-RELO (Aug. 25, 1997); George S. Lu, GSBCA 13659-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,797. The General Accounting Office, which previously resolved relocation claims of federal government employees, reached this same conclusion. Howard L. Peterson, 69 Comp. Gen. 242 (1990); Gerald L. Rooney, B-235336 (Oct. 26, 1989). Because Mr. Liebscher was notified within the time period allowed for completing his residence sale transaction that he was being transferred back to his former duty station, USDA's obligation to reimburse him for residence sale expenses was limited to the expenses already incurred and those which could not be avoided. Mr. Liebscher did not incur any expenses until after he was transferred back to Alaska, and he could have avoided those expenses if he had moved into his house in Wasilla. Although we do not question Mr. Liebscher's reasons for wanting to avoid the Wasilla house, USDA is not required to pay the expenses necessary to satisfy Mr. Liebscher's personal wishes. If Mr. Liebscher could no longer afford the house in Wasilla, this was not the result of his transfer to Idaho. Rather, it was the result of his decision to accept a lower paying position in order to return to Alaska. Mr. Liebscher's sale of his house in Wasilla was not the result of his transfer to Idaho, and the costs he incurred when he sold that residence were not costs of moving to Idaho. Mr. Liebscher is not entitled to the reimbursement he seeks for his residence sale expenses. Before we can consider whether Mr. Liebscher can be reimbursed for the expenses, listed above, that he requests in addition to his residence sale expenses, he must first present USDA with a claim for the additional expenses. If Mr. Liebscher disagrees with USDA's decision, then he may ask for our review. Rule 401(c). _______________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge