Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
                              ___________
 
                             April 6, 1998
                              ___________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14410-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of EDWARD G. HENRY
 
 
        Edward G. Henry, Sevierville, TN, Claimant.
 
        C.  Bruce  Sheaffer,  Comptroller,  National  Park  Service,
   Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
 
             The  claimant, relocated  because  of a  permanent
        change of  station, purchased  a residence  at the  new
        duty station with his fiancee.  The two were purchasers
        and borrowers  regarding the residence which was titled
        in  both names.   The agency prorated  the reimbursable
        real estate expenses, paying one-half the amount to the
        claimant and not reimbursing the remainder, because the
        claimant shared title to the newly purchased residence.
        The  claimant has  not demonstrated entitlement  to the
        disallowed amount; the  agency correctly concluded that
        the claimant's fiancee  was not part of  the claimant's
        immediate  family and that  full reimbursement would be
        contrary to regulation.
 
        Incident  to  a  permanent change  of  station  occurring in
   September  1995, the  claimant,  Edward  G.  Henry,  purchased  a
   residence at his new  duty station.  At the time  of the closing,
   in  April 1997,  the  claimant  was single,  but  engaged with  a
   planned wedding for  May 1997, which occurred.   The claimant and
   his  fiancee  jointly  were  buyers  of  and  borrowers  for  the
   purchased  residence   which  was  titled  in  both  names.    In
   purchasing the residence, the couple incurred what are said to be
   reimbursable costs of $2,458.60.  The  agency has reimbursed one-
   half  of those  costs, $1,229.30,  and  disallowed the  remainder
   because the claimant held title  with someone other than a member
   of his immediate family.
 
        While the claimant  asserts a "moral responsibility"  of the
   Government  to reimburse  the unpaid expenses,  he has  failed to
   provide a reference to a statute or regulation which demonstrates
   entitlement.  The  applicable Federal Travel Regulation  (FTR) is
   specific  in  defining  "immediate family,"    41  CFR 302-1.4(f)
   (1995)  (FTR 302-1.4(f)), and  in establishing title requirements
   for  reimbursement, FTR 302-6.1(c).   The claimant's  fiancee was
   not a member of his immediate family.   The claimant shared title
   to the  purchased residence  with his  fiancee; further, the  two
   were joint purchasers  and borrowers.  The claimant  did not hold
   title alone or with a member of his immediate family, and has not
   demonstrated that he held an equitable title interest as  defined
   in the regulation, FTR 302-6.1(c)(3).  An employee is entitled to
   be reimbursed on  a pro rata basis  in a situation such  as this.
   FTR 302-6.1(f)(2).  Given the  facts contained in the record, the
   claimant  has  not   shown  his  entitlement  to   the  $1,229.30
   disallowed by the agency.
 
 
 
   __________________________
 
                                           JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                           Board Judge