Board of Contract Appeals
                  General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


          _______________________________________________
                                 
                          August 4, 1998
          _______________________________________________
                                 

                         GSBCA 14529-RELO
                                 

                    In the Matter of BRUCE PARK

                              
     Bruce Park, Madison, AL, Claimant.

     Robert H. Garfield, Chief, General Law Division, United
States Army Aviation & Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL,
appearing for Department of the Army.
     
BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Bruce Park, a civilian employee of the Department
of the Army (Army), seeks review of the agency's denial of his
request for an extension of his temporary quarters subsistence
expense (TQSE) period in connection with his permanent change of
station (PCS) relocation to Huntsville, Alabama.  Claimant
requested an extension of the TQSE period due to delay in the
occupancy of his new house because of inclement weather which
occurred before the commencement of his initial TQSE period.  The
agency denied the request because  claimant had entered into a
contract for new construction with an anticipated completion date
after the expiration of initial period of TQSE.  Claimant then
filed a claim at this Board.  We conclude the agency correctly
denied claimant's request. 

     Claimant, an employee of the Army's Aviation and Troop
Command (ATCOM), was relocated to Huntsville, Alabama, in a
consolidation of that command with the Army's Aviation and
Missile Command.  This occurred as a result of the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiative.  On February 21, 1997,
claimant received a travel authorization for a PCS move from St.
Louis, Missouri to Huntsville, Alabama.  The agency authorized a
ten-day househunting trip and TQSE for an additional period of
fifty days.  His duty reporting date, according to an amended
travel authorization, was July 29.  On April 16, claimant signed
a contract to have a house built with a scheduled completion date
of October 1, 1997.  

     Before his move, claimant states that personnel at his old
station advised him and other employees at TQSE seminars that
extensions of the TQSE period would routinely be granted if an
employee chose to build a house.  The agency had issued pamphlets
which advised employees that "Extensions of up to sixty days [for
the TQSE period] may be authorized only in situations where there
is a demonstrated need, due to circumstances which have occurred
during the initial [sixty]-day period of temporary quarters, and
which are determined to be beyond the employee's control and
acceptable to the DoD component concerned."  

     Claimant reported for duty on July 26; the end of his fifty-
day TQSE period was September 12, 1997.  Claimant states that
during part of April and all of May, it rained "almost
continuously" in Huntsville.  On August 12, claimant's builder
notified claimant that, as a result of the inclement weather, the
estimated completion date for the house was now October 31.   On
August 13, claimant requested a sixty-day extension (until
November 11) of his TQSE period because of the delay in the
completion of the house and the anticipated time it would take to
retrieve his household goods (HHG) from storage.   

     The agency denied the request since the Joint Travel
Regulations (JTR) allowed for an extension of the TQSE period
only in limited circumstances and because: "[b]ased on the
information you provided, at the time you signed your [building]
contract you knew your home was not scheduled to be completed
within the initial TQSE allotment.  Therefore, an extension is
not warranted." 

                            Discussion
 
     The JTR in effect at the time of claimant's PCS move
provided that subsistence expenses beyond the initial TQSE
period: "may be allowed for an additional period of time not to
exceed 60 consecutive days provided the head of the DOD component
concerned or his/her designee, determines there are compelling
reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters."  JTR
13004-A.2 (1996); see Thomas Potts, GSBCA 13700-RELO, 97-1 BCA 
20,938.  The JTR required that the employee justification and
subsequent administrative approval be in writing.  When an
additional period of TQSE allowance is allowed, written
justification and documentation must be provided.  JTR 13004-A.2. 
The employee must provide the approving official a written
justification which describes circumstances demonstrating a need
for additional time in temporary quarters that occurred during
the initial sixty-day period of temporary quarters occupancy and
that are clearly shown to be beyond the employee's control.  JTR
13004-A.3.  The justification, accompanied by "documentation from
the approving official indicating his/her reasons for approving
or denying the requested extension[,] will be retained in a
management file and available for review."  JTR C13004-A.3.    

     It has long been the rule that when an employee contracts to
build a house with an anticipated completion date after the
expiration of the initial TQSE period, any event occurring during
the initial period may not be considered as having caused the
employee to remain in temporary quarters beyond the initial
sixty-day period.  Daniel G. Colley, B-254120 (Dec. 14, 1993);
Arthur P. Meister, B-224884 (Sept. 23, 1987).  We have
consistently sustained agency denials of an extension of the TQSE
period under this version of the JTR where the events allegedly
causing the delay in occupancy of permanent quarters occurred
outside the initial period of TQSE.  Charles D. Parton, GSBCA
14462-RELO, 98-1 BCA  29,736; Michael E. Perez, GSBCA 14412-
RELO, 98-1 BCA  29,608.  

     Here, claimant signed a contract for construction of a new
house with an anticipated completion date beyond the initial
period of TQSE.  The event which resulted in the request for a
TQSE extension--the inclement weather leading to construction
delay of claimant's new house--occurred before the initial period
of TQSE.   See Thomas M. Hood, GSBCA 13845-RELO, 97-1 BCA 
28,954. 

     Appellant nevertheless maintains he is entitled to an
extension because the agency granted extensions for two employees
in his exact same circumstance.  Even if true, an agency's
earlier error is not authorization for the agency to repeat the
error.   Blase J. Cianfrani, GSBCA 14426-RELO, 98-1 BCA  29,726. 
Claimant also relies on the oral advice given at the PCS seminars
held during the relocation that extensions of the TQSE period for
employees building new housing at the new duty station would be
routine.  Such advice would have indeed been unfortunate, because
it was wrong.  As we have seen, under the JTR, extensions of the
TQSE period are not routinely granted.  Nevertheless, despite the
oral advice, the agency did hand out pamphlets which accurately
summarized the JTR.  As we have explained in an earlier matter
arising from an ATCOM consolidation and relocation under the BRAC
initiative, erroneous advice cannot bind the Government to spend
money in violation of statute and regulation.  Michael Perez.  

                             Decision

     The claim is denied.


__________________________
ANTHONY S. BORWICK
Board Judge