June 10, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 14148-RELO


                    In the Matter of CHERYL A. CADWELL


     Cheryl A. Cadwell, Santa Monica, CA, Claimant.

     Ronald L. Page, Manager, External Relations Branch, Federal
Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department
of Transportation.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     In 1993, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
transferred electronics technician Cheryl A. Cadwell from the
agency's Airway Facilities Sector Office in Burbank, California
to its Regional Office in Hawthorne, California.  These offices
are both within the Los Angeles metropolitan area.  The distance
between them is approximately thirty-three miles.

     The FAA issued to Ms. Cadwell permanent change of station
travel orders which say, "You are authorized allowances for
expenses incurred in connection with real estate transactions." 
Ms. Cadwell gave up her apartment in Burbank, purchased a unit in
Santa Monica, and moved into the latter place.  She submitted a
voucher seeking reimbursement of the $3,077.41 in costs she
incurred in buying her new residence.  The FAA refused to make
payment, and Ms. Cadwell filed a claim.  For the reasons
explained below, we find that the agency action was in error.

     Generally, when an employee is transferred in the interest
of the Government from one official permanent duty station to
another, the Government, in accordance with regulatory
prescriptions, is to pay the expenses the employee incurs in
selling his residence at the old station and buying a home at the
new one.  5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4) (1988); 41 CFR 302-1.3(a)(1),
pt. 302-6 (1993).  When the old and new stations are within a
short distance of each other, special rules apply.  If the
distance is at least ten miles and is within the same general
local or metropolitan area, as in Ms. Cadwell's case, the
applicable allowances "shall be authorized only when the agency
determines that the relocation was incident to the change of
official station."  41 CFR 302-1.7(a).  The Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) prescribes factors which an agency should
consider in making such a determination.  Principal among them
are "commuting time and distance between the employee's residence
at the time of notification of transfer and his/her old and new
posts of duty as well as the commuting time and distance between
a proposed new residence and the new post of duty."  Id.

     The FAA is a part of the Department of Transportation (DOT). 
At the time of Ms. Cadwell's move, DOT had its own regulations,
which generally follow the rules described in the preceding
paragraph, governing changes of station within the same city or
area.  The DOT regulations included a "general guideline" that
agency officials take special care in deciding whether to
authorize relocation benefits where an employee is being
transferred within "the local commuting area of the old duty
station."  The regulations further established a "recommended
guideline" for use in determining a commuting area: "the standard
metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) in which the old duty
station is located or the 35-mile radius surrounding that
location, whichever is less."  The regulations also provided that
relocation of a residence should not be considered incident to a
transfer "unless there is sufficient savings of commuting time
and distance" -- ordinarily, at least thirty minutes less time
between the new residence and the new duty station than between
the old residence and the new duty station.  DOT 1500.14A SUP 10
(July 2, 1992).

     The FAA now believes that its authorization of real estate
transaction expenses to Ms. Cadwell was impermissible because the
distance between the agency's Burbank and Hawthorne offices is
less than the thirty-five miles referenced in the DOT
regulations.  This position is based on a misunderstanding of the
rules.  The thirty-five mile distance is merely a guideline for
use in determining a commuting area.  Even if it were a firm
standard, the "general guideline" would only require agency
officials to take special care in considering whether to
authorize relocation benefits to an employee who is being
transferred between offices located closer together than that
distance.  Neither the DOT regulations nor the FTR precluded the
FAA from authorizing benefits to Ms. Cadwell.  Because the agency
could have made this authorization, and actually did so, Ms.
Cadwell is entitled to the benefits if her relocation was truly
incident to her transfer.  John Patrick Pede, GSBCA 13862-RELO
(Apr. 25, 1997).

     The facts agreed upon by the agency and the claimant make
clear that Ms. Cadwell's relocation meets this test.  Her old
residence was only four miles from her old duty station in
Burbank, clearly a short commute.  Had she stayed in that
residence, she would have had a forty-one mile, one and one-
quarter hour commute each day to her new duty station in
Hawthorne.  By moving to a residence about ten miles from the new
duty station, she has reduced her one-way commuting time to
twenty minutes.  The difference between one and one-quarter hours
and twenty minutes is considerably more than the thirty minutes
that DOT recommends as establishing sufficient savings to merit a
determination that a relocation was incident to a transfer.

     We direct the agency to review the specifics of the claim
submitted by Ms. Cadwell and reimburse her for all expenses which
are allowable according to the relevant regulation, 41 CFR pt.
302-6.





                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge