Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ February 1, 1999 _________________________ GSBCA 14581-RELO In the Matter of SHASHIKANT D. NAIK Shashikant D. Naik, Hercules, CA, Claimant. Richard A. Findley, Assistant Commander for Corporate Operations, Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, appearing for Department of the Navy. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, a civilian employee of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), was authorized to be reimbursed for real estate transaction expenses incurred in conjunction with his permanent change of station (PCS). Claimant sought an extension of the two-year eligibility period due to unresolved issues regarding his children s college education, the need to sell his old residence before purchasing a new one, and the soft real estate market. NAVAIR denied claimant s request based on its determinations that the reasons for claimant s delay were personal in nature and were not extenuating circumstances beyond his control and that his residential transactions were not reasonably related to his PCS. We sustain NAVAIR s decision and deny the claim. Background Claimant, who had been an employee of the now closed Naval Aviation Depot at Alameda, California, an activity under the command of NAVAIR, accepted a job at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California, with a reporting date of April 1, 1996. The Naval Aviation Depot authorized claimant to incur reimbursable real estate and other expenses related to his PCS in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-6 (1995), and Joint Travel Regulation (JTR) C14000. The regulations specify that the settlement dates for reimbursable real estate transactions are not to be later than two years after the date that the employee reported for duty at the new official station. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (e)(1); JTR C14000-B. However, the initial two-year period for the completion of the sale and purchase transactions may be extended by the head of the agency or his/her designee for an additional period of time not to exceed 1 year. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (e)(2)(i); JTR C14000-B. On March 12, 1998, claimant submitted a request to NAVAIR for a one-year extension to complete his real estate transactions. Claimant first listed his house with a real estate agent on January 5, 1998. At the time of the request for an extension, an offer had been made on his house but the sale was not yet final. In explaining why the house had not been put on the market earlier, claimant cited family concerns as the primary reason -- his children s unresolved educational issues and the need for the new home to be located conveniently for his wife,[foot #] 1 his daughter, and himself. Specifically, the location of claimant's new residence was dependent on where his daughter gained admission to college, the purchase of a new home was dependent on the sale of the old one, and the real estate market was soft. Claimant s house was ultimately sold on May 1, 1998. The agency denied claimant's request for an extension, concluding that claimant's personal choice and not extenuating circumstances caused the need for an extension. The agency compared Mr. Naik's situation to situations in other cases decided by this Board and concluded that he failed to prove extenuating circumstances acceptable to the commanding officer of NAVAIR that prevented him from completing the sale and purchase transactions in the initial two-year time frame. Further, the agency reasoned that since claimant had commuted for two years between his old home and the new duty station, his real estate transactions were related to his family's convenience and not his PCS. Discussion The FTR specifies that in order to approve an extension of the initial two-year period the agency must determine that extenuating circumstances, acceptable to the agency concerned, have prevented the employee from completing the sale and purchase or lease termination transaction in the initial time frame and that the residence transactions are reasonably related to the transfer of official station. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (e)(2)(iii); JTR C14000-B. In construing this regulation, the Board has recognized that the [r]egulation vests discretion in the agency to make certain determinations as to each request for an extension of the two-year period in which settlement must occur in order for the transferred employee to be ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Claimant first raised his wife's need to relocate a business in his appeal to this Board. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- reimbursed for expenses incurred in the purchase of a home at the new duty station. Larry E. Olinger, GSBCA 14566-RELO, 98-2 BCA 28,877. The Board explained the agency's role and our review function as follows: First, the agency must decide whether extenuating circumstances prevented the employee from completing the purchase within two years of the date on which he reported for duty at the station. Second, if the agency finds extenuating circumstances, it must decide whether they are acceptable. Third, the agency must decide whether the transaction is reasonably related to the transfer to the new station. All of these determinations are subjective, and because the law grants broad discretion to the agency, we will not disturb any of them unless we find that a determination is arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Id. at 147,931 (citing Clifford L. Leeson, GSBCA 14354-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,701; cf. Rifat A. Ajjuri, GSBCA 14506-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,788; Daniel A. Rishe, GSBCA 14444-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,677; William T. Stowers, GSBCA 14099-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,096 (similar rule as to agency determinations regarding extensions of period of eligibility for temporary quarters subsistence expenses)). Applying this standard, we cannot conclude that the agency's action in denying claimant an extension was arbitrary or capricious. Rather, we share the agency's view that claimant s personal choices made for his family's convenience do not constitute extenuating circumstances justifying an extension. Decision The agency s denial of claimant s request for an extension in which to incur reimbursable real estate transaction expenses is sustained. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge