November 17, 1997
                                                
 
 
                            GSBCA 14182-RELO
 
 
                 In the Matter of MICHAEL S. KNEZEVICH
 
 
        Michael S. Knezevich, Levittown, PR, Claimant.
 
        Edgardo Aviles, Travel Team Leader, U. S. Customs Service,
   Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of the Treasury.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        The United States Customs Service transferred one of its
   employees, Michael S. Knezevich, from Miami, Florida, to Key
   West, Florida, on December 1, 1994.  Almost immediately
   thereafter, the agency sent Mr. Knezevich on temporary duty
   assignments in Miami and Puerto Rico.  The temporary duty lasted
   until November 8, 1995. 
 
        When Mr. Knezevich left Miami in 1994, he put his household
   goods in storage.  The goods remained in storage for 329 days. 
   The Customs Service acknowledges an obligation to pay for the
   first 180 days of storage but maintains that the employee is
   responsible for the remaining 149 days.  Mr. Knezevich notes that
   the agency (in April 1995) agreed to pay for the storage until he
   had relocated.  He also maintains that the agency should pay the
   entire bill since, by sending him on temporary duty, it precluded
   him from finding a permanent home earlier than he did.
 
        The provision of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) on
   which the Customs Service relies, 41 CFR 302-8.2(d) (1994), says
   that when an agency authorizes temporary storage in connection
   with a shipment of a transferred employee's household goods, the
   Government will pay for 90 days of storage and may, on an
   employee's written request, extend this time by "an additional
   period not to exceed 90 days under certain conditions."  Among
   the conditions for which an extension is appropriate is an
   intervening temporary duty assignment.
 
        Until mid-1996, the General Accounting Office (GAO) settled
   claims against the United States involving relocation expenses
   incurred by federal employees.  The GAO held that because the
   regulation cited by the Customs Service is clear, it must be
   strictly applied, even in situations where application would be
   unfair to an employee or the agency has mistakenly advised the
   employee that it would continue to pay for storage of his goods. 
   Linda Towson Hilliard, B-259606 (June 12, 1995); David C. Funk,
   B-227488 (Dec. 29, 1987).
 
        The GAO believed that to eliminate inequities in the
   application of the regulation, the rule should be amended to
   allow agencies discretion to extend the time period beyond 180
   days where an agency action is the reason for the employee's need
   for further storage.  Allan W. Beres, B-259606, et al. (Dec. 28,
   1995).
 
        We agree with the GAO's position that under the portion of
   the FTR which deals with relocation allowances for employees who
   are transferred in the interest of the Government from one
   permanent duty station to another, 41 CFR ch. 302, an agency may
   pay for no more than 180 days of temporary storage of an
   employee's household goods.  In our view, however, Mr.
   Knezevich's predicament was not solely attributable to such a
   transfer.  The fact that the agency put him on temporary duty for
   the eleven months right after his reassignment occurred was the
   cause of his inability to find a permanent destination for his
   goods.  Allowances for employees on temporary duty are covered by
   another part of the FTR, 41 CFR ch. 301.  In this unusual
   circumstance of continuous, very long-term temporary duty,
   storage costs might more appropriately be considered a cost of
   travel rather than a cost of elocation.  We therefore look to
   chapter 301 in addition to chapter 302 for guidance in
   determining whether the agency or the employee should pay for the
   last 149 days of storage.
 
        We find relevant guidance in paragraph 301-9.1(e) of the
   FTR, which provides: "Miscellaneous expenditures not enumerated
   in this section, when necessarily incurred by the traveler in
   connection with the transaction of official business, shall be
   allowed when approved."  Charges for the temporary storage of
   household goods are surely miscellaneous in the context of
   employees' travel, since only on rare instances might they be
   associated with travel.  Mr. Knezevich, however, clearly incurred
   the charges in question as a direct result of the agency's orders
   that he go on temporary duty away from his new permanent duty
   station.  The charges were therefore incurred, while traveling
   from that station, in connection with the transaction of official
   business.  The agency approved payment of the charges (though it
   later believed that such approval was not permissible). 
   Consequently, payment should be allowed as a cost of the
   claimant's temporary duty, even though it is not appropriately
   considered a cost of relocation.
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge