Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 July 21, 1998 GSBCA 14285-RELO In the Matter of ELIZABETH A. HAIR Elizabeth A. Hair, Hampton, VA, Claimant. Charles N. Stockwell, Liaison Office, Directorate of Support Services, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). In March 1997, the Department of the Air Force issued orders to civilian employee Elizabeth A. Hair transferring her permanent duty station from Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), Massachusetts, to Langley AFB, Virginia. These orders authorized Ms. Hair to take a house-hunting trip to Virginia in advance of the move. She took such a trip, and incurred costs in doing so, but the Air Force has declined to reimburse her for those costs. The agency's reason for denying reimbursement is that Ms. Hair did not need to look for a home in the Langley AFB vicinity because at the time of her house-hunting trip, her husband, a uniformed serviceman, had already been living in an apartment in the area for eighteen months. The agency considered that in light of the duration of Mr. Hair's residence, his quarters must have been permanent, so Ms. Hair did not need to look for a place to live once she moved to Virginia. Ms. Hair responds that her husband's apartment did not meet the couple's needs, especially because the commute from there to her new station would have been lengthy. The Hairs searched for a home in the area during the month of March, while she was on the house-hunting trip, and completed the purchase of a house in Hampton, near Langley AFB, in April. In our view, the claimant's position is compelling. The Joint Travel Regulations provide that round-trip travel to a new duty station, in advance of the reporting date, to seek a permanent residence may generally be authorized for employees who are being transferred. JTR C4107-A. The Air Force did authorize a house-hunting trip for Ms. Hair, and it took this action with knowledge of her husband's employment and living situation. The fact that the husband was a uniformed serviceman would not preclude payment to Ms. Hair of permanent change of station allowances, such as this trip, even if he had transferred at the same time (though duplicate payments for the same purpose are not allowed). JTR C4000-C. As we have previously held, an agency may not exercise its discretion to authorize a transferred employee to incur reimbursable expenses and then, after the expenses are incurred, deny the authorized reimbursement. Bart J. Dubinsky, GSBCA 14546-RELO (June 18, 1998); Cheryl A. Cadwell, GSBCA 14148-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,066; John Patrick Pede, GSBCA 13862-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,023. Even if the agency had taken all relevant facts into consideration before authorizing Ms. Hair's house-hunting trip, instead of after, the justification it submits for denying benefits is untenable. Although Mr. Hair's apartment may have been permanent for occupancy by him alone, this does not mean that it was suitable quarters for two people, particularly when one of them was to work a considerable distance from it. Cf. Paul W. Johnson, GSBCA 13815-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,407 (1997) (home at new duty station owned by transferred employee viewed as temporary quarters, given particular circumstances); Charles J. Robinson, GSBCA 13693-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,692 (1996) (citing Comptroller General rulings that accommodations big enough for one person should be considered temporary, though occupied for many months, pending arrival of family requiring larger quarters). The couple's desire to find a new residence, to meet the needs of a family rather than an individual, and at a location close to the newly-transferred spouse's duty station, was an appropriate basis for the original authorization for the house-hunting trip. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge