October 7, 1997 GSBCA 14270-RELO In the Matter of STEVEN D. HANSON Steven D. Hanson, Shawnee, KS, Claimant. Delores I. Moeller, Comptroller, Defense Investigative Service, Alexandria, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Steven D. Hanson, is a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, Defense Investigative Service (DIS). In 1991 and 1993 he made permanent change of station (PCS) moves to Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, and Fargo, North Dakota. In 1996, he requested the agency to reimburse him for relocation expenses in the amount of $5,398.92 incurred in these moves, and the agency denied the request. He has requested that this Board review the denial. Claimant contends that both moves were initiated by his employer for the benefit of the agency. Claimant states: My agency's decision not to compensate me was based in part due to the fact I had submitted written requests to PCS to these locations at my own expense. It must [b]e noted that both of these vacancies were brought to my attention by my supervisors, and written requests to move at my own expense were submitted only after being told by my supervisor that our agency had no money to pay for my moves. Prior to each PCS, it was also inferred by supervisory staff that each of my PCS s would make my position more stable in an era of cutbacks. In both moves, Mr. Hanson was not promoted. The transfer was a lateral transfer to the same grade. The agency report filed at this Board reads, in relevant part: The DIS paid Permanent Change of Station (PCS) program is centrally managed through our Headquarter's [sic] office in Alexandria, Virginia. All DIS PCS orders are prepared and approved at the Headquarter's [sic] level. DIS supervisors in our field office locations do not have authority to approve staff relocations. . . . vacancy announcements for positions with DIS contain a statement regarding whether PCS expenses will or will not be paid . . . . In both of the 1991 and 1993 relocations, Mr. Hanson submitted written requests to relocate duty stations for his benefit and at his own expense. Therefore, the agency did not issue PCS orders to Mr. Hanson for either of his changes in duty station. Mr. Hanson s Notifications of Personnel Action, standard form 52, for each move contain the notation No cost move to the Government. In response to the agency report, claimant alleges that as a result of staffing needs at the two locations to which he moved, he was mentally pressured into relocating at my own expense in order to [e]nsure my job security during a period of staff reductions. He further alleges that [i]t is quite apparent . . . that both moves directly benefited my employing agency or they simply would not have approved my requests. Mr. Hanson has also submitted letters from co-workers attesting to his diligence and value in performing his duties, stating opinions that Mr. Hanson s two transfers were of benefit to the Government, and alleging that the agency did in fact have funds available to reimburse Mr. Hanson for expenses which he now seeks. One of these letters elaborates that Mr. Hanson s second request for transfer was to prevent his future transfer to a less desirable location in the event of a reduction in force. By statute, when an employee is transferred in the interest of the Government from one official duty station or agency to another, the Government shall pay allowable travel, transportation of household goods, and other relocation expenses. 5 U.S.C.  5724(a) (1994); see also Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) C4100. However, JTR C4100-A.2 and B.2 clearly state that payment of relocation expenses is not required in all PCS moves. This regulation reads, in relevant part: It is the responsibility of each DOD component to make decisions that balance the rights of employees and the prudent use of appropriated funds. For instance, activities may determine that well qualified candidates exist within a particular geographical area and therefore in their recruitment announcements, restrict the area of recruitment and/or indicate that PCS allowances are not offered. The Comptroller General held in 61 Comp. Gen. 156 (1981) that payment of relocation expenses need not be automatically tied to the existence of a vacancy announcement issued pursuant to a Merit Promotion Program. . . . . If an employee actively pursues, solicits or requests a position change resulting in the geographic move of such employee from one PDS [permanent duty station] to another, such a transfer is primarily for the convenience and benefit of the employee. The gaining activity must formally advise the employee at the time an offer is extended the transfer is in the interest of the employee and not in the interest of the Government, and that PCS expenses shall not be paid by the Government. When an employee voluntarily applies for a lateral transfer -- i.e., a position at the same grade as the one already held with no greater promotion potential, as in the instant case, the Comptroller General has held such a transfer is not presumed to be in the interest of the Government. Julia R. Lovorn, 67 Comp. Gen. 392 (1988); James Trenkelbach, B-219047 (Apr. 24, 1986). This is the case even where the employee has responded to a vacancy announcement and been competitively selected. In this situation, the agency has the discretion, based on the facts and circumstances, to determine if the move should be considered to be primarily in the Government's interest or for the convenience of the employee. Julie-Anna T. Tom, B-206011 (May 3, 1982); Eugene R. Platt; Rosemary Lacey, B-185077 (May 27, 1976). The Comptroller General has consistently stated that an agency's exercise of this discretion will be sustained unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous; see, e.g., Samuel Evans. This Board also follows this rule and will sustain the agency's exercise of discretion unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Paul C. Martin, GSBCA 13722-RELO (Dec. 11, 1996). In this instance, claimant voluntarily applied for a lateral transfer for his own benefit and at his own expense. This voluntary action during a period of downsizing was for job security, and apparently the second transfer to Fargo at claimant s request was to avoid a future transfer to a less desirable location in the event of a reduction in force. While the Board does not question the assertions of claimant and his co-workers that his efforts in both locations were beneficial to the Government, this does not lead to the conclusion that the transfers were in the interest of the Government. While his supervisors may have suggested that the moves would have resulted in greater job security, Mr. Hanson was under no obligation to volunteer for such transfers. The agency did not issue PCS orders to Mr. Hanson for either of his changes in duty station, for which he volunteered at no expense to the Government. Pursuant to the above-quoted regulation, Mr. Hanson was made aware prior to moving that the Government did not intend to reimburse him for moving expenses, and this was noted on his notification of personnel action. Under such circumstances, it was reasonable for the agency to determine that claimant's moves were not in the interest of the Government, but solely for the employee's convenience. There is no showing that this determination was arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the agency's determination is sustained. _______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge