_____________________________

                            September 30, 1997
                       _____________________________


                             GSBCA 14157-RELO


                   In the Matter of RONALD W. MARTINEAU


     Ronald W. Martineau, Fredericksburg, VA, Claimant.

     Charles A. Hurst, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of
Defense.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Mr. Ronald W. Martineau, an employee of the Navy,
challenges the disallowance of his claim for $6,400 in temporary
quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) incurred under a permanent
change of station (PCS) transfer from San Diego, California to
Dahlgren, Virginia.  The reason given by the agency for disallowing
the amount claimed is that Mr. Martineau's lodging was not
temporary.  Mr. Martineau's primary argument is that his actions
saved the Government considerable expense in connection with the
move and thus comported with the general requirement that employees
exercise prudence in the incurrence of expenses while on official
travel.  For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the agency
properly denied this claim.   

                                Background

     Mr. Martineau received his PCS orders in March 1994.  The
orders authorized reimbursement of the usual complement of
relocation expenses, including TQSE, temporary storage of household
goods, and a ten-day house hunting trip.  Prior to his official
departure date from San Diego, claimant traveled to Dahlgren,
Virginia on temporary duty (TDY) for two weeks.  Claimant explains
that he regarded this TDY stint as an opportunity to minimize the
relocation expenses that would be paid by the Government in
connection with his transfer.  On the first weekend of the TDY he
thus engaged in house hunting and found a house of interest.  He
then extended his stay to a second weekend and his spouse traveled
to Virginia, using the authorized house hunting trip under the PCS
orders, which saved the Government an extra round trip fare for him
to return to San Diego and then return for house hunting.  Claimant
and his spouse agreed that the house was suitable and entered into
a contract to lease with a deferred settlement.  His intention was
to rent the house in Virginia during the period needed to sell and
close on the house in California in order to be able to afford to
buy the home in Virginia.  The lease provided for purchase of the
home contingent upon the sale of the house in California.  Claimant
was unaware of applicable regulations restricting payments of TQSE
where housing occupied at the new duty station is not intended to
be purely temporary.  

     Because the lodging occupied in Virginia was not intended to
be temporary, however, Mr. Martineau's claims for reimbursement of
TQSE were denied by the agency.  Claimant requests that the denial
of this claim be reviewed because his actions nonetheless
constituted a more economical approach for the Government.  Mr.
Martineau argues that he acted in good faith, believing that he
would be eligible to have these costs reimbursed.  He also states
that denial of the claims has posed a financial hardship.  

                                Discussion

     The payment of subsistence expenses while occupying temporary
quarters is governed by part 5, chapter 2 of the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR).  41 CFR 302-5 (1995).  Under this section of the
FTR, an employee may not be reimbursed for TQSE after he or she
occupies permanent quarters.  41 CFR 302-5.2(f); see also Joint
Travel Regulations (JTR) C13000.  The FTR and JTR recognize that
occupancy of temporary quarters that eventually become the
employee's permanent residence need not preclude payment of TQSE if
the employee can show that the quarters were initially intended to
be only temporary.  41 CFR 302-5.2(c); JTR C13000.  This is not
what occurred here, however.

     It is clear from the record in this claim that the house
occupied by the Martineau family upon moving to Virginia was
intended to serve as permanent quarters.  Indeed, claimant does not
argue otherwise.  His sole argument is that he was unfamiliar with
the controlling regulations and his actions in locating permanent
quarters so quickly were intended to minimize the expense of the
move in keeping with the requirement that he exercise prudence in
incurring expenses.  See JTR C1058.

     Although claimant here certainly acted prudently, and it is
unfortunate that he formed the mistaken expectation that the
Government would pay TQSE for the period of the lease pending
purchase of the house, nonetheless, the applicable regulations do
not permit the agency to pay TQSE once an employee has occupied
permanent quarters.  See Reginald Cutter, B-260765 (Dec. 14, 1995). 
The general principle that an employee act with prudence in
incurring expenses while on official travel does not override or
otherwise modify the specific language of FTR 302-5(c).  The agency
thus properly disallowed this claim.  




                                   _______________________________
                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                   Board Judge