December 17, 1997 GSBCA 14268-RELO In the Matter of LISA F. PIERCE Lisa F. Pierce, Waldorf, MD, Claimant. M. Corcoran, Commanding Officer, Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Navy. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Generally, when an agency transfers one of its employees in the interest of the Government from one official permanent duty station to another, the agency, in accordance with regulatory prescriptions, is to reimburse the employee for various expenses he incurs in connection with the move. 5 U.S.C. 5724a (1994). When the change of station involves a short distance -- at least ten miles, but within the same metropolitan area -- the allowances provided by statute and regulation for relocating employees "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) (1994); see also JTR C4108. In May 1995, the unit within the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Washington (NAVCOMTELSTAWASHDC), in which Lisa F. Pierce was employed moved from Cheltenham, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. The two locations are more than ten miles apart, but both are within the Washington metropolitan area. Within two months of the move, Ms. Pierce sold her house in Great Mills, Maryland, and relocated to another home, which she purchased, in Waldorf, Maryland. According to Ms. Pierce, her old commute had been forty-eight miles and one hour each way. By relocating, she reduced her new commute from sixty-nine miles and one and one-half hours to twenty-three miles and about three- quarters of an hour each way. Ms. Pierce maintains that her relocation was incident to the change in her official station, and that she should consequently receive reimbursement for the expenses of the relocation which are allowed by regulation. The Department of the Navy says that for reasons of efficiency, it has moved hundreds of NAVCOMTELSTAWASHDC employees from various locations in the Washington metropolitan area to the Washington Navy Yard, and did not authorize relocation benefits for any of them. The Navy contends, citing several decisions of the General Accounting Office, that agencies have considerable discretion in authorizing such benefits when old and new duty stations are relatively close together. E.g., Hon. Ken Calvert, B-256350 (May 4, 1994). The principle asserted by the Navy is valid. John Patrick Pede, GSBCA 13862-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,023. The applicable regulations do not support a blanket determination that no employees should receive relocation benefits when a unit is moved more than ten miles within a metropolitan area, however. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) says that a determination as to whether an employee's relocation is incident to a transfer "shall take into consideration such factors as 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." 41 CFR 302-1.7(a). The Joint Travel Regulations, which supplement the FTR for civilian employees of the Department of Defense, contain virtually identical guidance. JTR C4108. Commuting time and distance involving an employee's residences are factors which are particular to an individual employee. Since Ms. Pierce's new and old commutes are different from, say, those of an employee whose office moved with hers but who relocated his home from Waldorf to the neighborhood of the Navy Yard, determinations as to relocation benefits must be made separately for each of them. The Navy must decide, applying the factors specified by regulation, whether Ms. Pierce's relocation from Great Mills to Waldorf was incident to the agency's transfer of her duty station from Cheltenham to Washington. If the determination is in the negative, the agency should not pay any of the amounts Ms. Pierce claims. If the determination is in the affirmative, however, the agency should take the following actions as to the amounts she claims: (1) It should pay Ms. Pierce a $700 miscellaneous expense allowance associated with the change in residence of her and her husband. 41 CFR 302-3.2(a), -3.3(a)(2); JTR C9002, C9003. (2) The agency should decide, applying relevant provisions of regulation, whether Ms. Pierce is entitled to reimbursement of costs of temporary storage of household goods. 41 CFR 302-8.2(d), -8.5; JTR C8001.B.2. (3) The agency should also decide, applying relevant provisions of regulation, which of her real estate transaction expenses should be reimbursed. 41 CFR pt. 302-6; JTR C14000-C14006. Even if the agency finds that the claimant's relocation was incident to the transfer, however, Ms. Pierce is not entitled to temporary quarters subsistence expenses, since the distance between her old residence and new duty station (sixty-nine miles by her count) is not more than forty miles greater than the distance between her old residence and her old station (forty-eight miles). 41 CFR 302-5.2(h); JTR C13006.A; see Carl Nichols, Jr., GSBCA 13910-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,026. If Ms. Pierce believes that any of the agency's determinations is inconsistent with the applicable law, she may file a new claim regarding the matter or matters in dispute. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge