Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ April 21, 1998 _________________ GSBCA 14278-RELO In the Matter of GEORGE S. CHACONAS George S. Chaconas, Fayetteville, NC, Claimant. Timothy D. Johnson, Judge Advocate, Fort McCoy Legal Office, Fort McCoy, WI, appearing for Department of the Army. PARKER, Board Judge. In June 1997, Mr. George Chaconas, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army, was transferred to Fort Bragg, North Carolina from Fort McCoy, Wisconsin. Mr. Chaconas has asked the Board to review the Army's disallowance of three expenses which he incurred in connection with the transfer. Mr. Chaconas sold his house in Wisconsin but rented it back from the buyer for six days while awaiting the move to North Carolina. The Army denied his claim for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for this period because Mr. Chaconas had not vacated his permanent residence. The Army relied on the Board's decision in Karl Hoglund, GSBCA 13716-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,716 (1996), in which we followed a long line of decisions by the Comptroller General holding that, if the employee continues to occupy the residence as the customary or usual place of abode, the employee has not "vacated" the residence and, therefore, may not be reimbursed for the cost of temporary quarters. Much has changed since 1996, however. At the time that Hoglund was decided, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), which governs reimbursement of TQSE, provided that "temporary quarters" is "lodging obtained from private or commercial sources for the purpose of temporary occupancy after vacating the residence occupied when the transfer was authorized." 41 CFR 302-5.2(c) (1994) (emphasis added). Effective March 22, 1997, however, the underlined words have been eliminated from the regulation. The FTR now provides that "temporary quarters" is "lodging obtained for the purpose of temporary occupancy from a private or commercial source." 41 CFR 302-5.1 (1997). The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) have been similarly modified. JTR C13000 (Mar. 1, 1998). As we pointed out in Patricia Tobin, GSBCA 14483-RELO (Mar. 25, 1998): The authors of these regulations have provided no explanation of why they have modified the definition of "temporary quarters." Is this modification a substantive change, making an employee who transfers today eligible for TQSE if he sells his residence and rents back the house from the new owner during his last days at this old duty station instead of staying at a hotel? The answer is beyond the scope of this case. It will have to await either a case posing this question or an explanatory statement (or supplemental modification to the regulation) by the regulation writers. Id. at n.2. The case posing the question has arrived, with no explanatory statement by the regulation writers in sight. We now hold that, by eliminating the language requiring that an employee vacate the residence that he occupied at the time the transfer was authorized, the regulation writers intended to eliminate that requirement. Mr. Chaconas is thus eligible for TQSE during the period in which he rented his house in Wisconsin. In interpreting a statute or regulation, it is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence. 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction 46.06 (5th ed. 1992). In other words, unless clearly included by inadvertence, no part of a statute or regulation is deemed to be superfluous. Id. It follows, then, that if a part of that statute or regulation is subsequently eliminated, in the absence of an indication to the contrary, a substantive change must have been intended. "[T]he mere fact that the legislature enacts an amendment indicates that it thereby intended to change the original act by creating a new right or withdrawing an existing one." 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction 22.30 (5th ed. 1992). Application of these principles to the instant case results in the conclusion that, by eliminating the language requiring that an employee vacate his residence in order to be eligible to receive TQSE, in the absence of an indication to the contrary, the writers of the FTR must have intended to eliminate that requirement. The regulation thus interpreted clearly makes sense. At the time Mr. Chaconas entered into the rental transaction with the purchaser of his house, he clearly considered that he was leasing temporary quarters. As Mr. Chaconas points out, if he had rented an apartment or a hotel room, there would be no doubt as to his eligibility for TQSE. He believes that he should be reimbursed because "[t]he $300 is far less than what a family of four would pay for equal days in commercial lodging." We agree with Mr. Chaconas. Given the elimination of the restriction on eligibility for TQSE for an employee who has not vacated his permanent residence and Mr. Chaconas' clear intent to lease his house on a temporary basis, we hold that he is eligible for TQSE for this period. In order to sell his house in Wisconsin, Mr. Chaconas had to have an old oil tank removed ($650) and a gas hook-up installed ($38). The Army denied Mr. Chaconas' claim for reimbursement for these expenses because it determined that these were "operating or maintenance" costs which, by regulation, are not reimbursable in connection with a permanent change of station. Here, the Army is correct. Correction of deficiencies required to be completed in order to make a home saleable -- even when the requirement was not in effect at the time the residence was constructed -- are operating or maintenance costs which the FTR expressly states are not reimbursable residence transaction expenses. 41 CFR 302- 6.2(d)(2)(iv); Beverly Poole, B-254509 (Dec. 8, 1993). ______________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge