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



                                              

                          July 28, 1998
                                              


                         GSBCA 14587-RELO


              In the Matter of MARJORIE A. AHLQUIST


     Marjorie A. Ahlquist, Wilmington, NC, Claimant.

     Frank A. Baldwin, Office of General Counsel, Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, Indianapolis Center, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of Defense.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) transferred one of its
employees, Marjorie A. Ahlquist, from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to Wilmington, North
Carolina, in early 1998.  DFAS authorized payment to Ms. Ahlquist of temporary quarters
subsistence expenses (TQSE) for sixty days.  Ms. Ahlquist later asked that payment be
authorized for an additional sixty days.  DFAS denied this request.  Ms. Ahlquist has asked
us to review the agency's decision.  We find that DFAS's determination was reasonable.

     Ms. Ahlquist states that she had initially planned to have a new residence constructed
for her in Wilmington.  When she arrived there, she discovered that new construction in the
area was much more expensive than she had expected.  She then began to look at existing
houses, and although she found many available, she did not like their floor plans.  By May
1998, when she filed her claim with this Board, she was considering the purchase of either
a new residence or an existing home.  A month later, she signed an agreement to buy a home
which would be built for her.

     The regulation governing this matter is paragraph C13115-B of the Joint Travel
Regulations (JTR) (Apr. 1, 1998).  This paragraph provides:

     1.   TQSE may be authorized for an additional period [beyond the initial
     sixty days] of up to 60 consecutive days provided the head of the DOD
     [Department of Defense] component concerned, or designee, determines there
     are compelling reasons (due to circumstances beyond the employee's control)
     for the continued temporary quarters occupancy. . . .

          . . . .

     3.   Authorizations to extend the TQSE period and the number of days
     authorized must be held to a minimum.

See also 5 U.S.C.A.   5724a(c)(2) (West Supp. 1998); 41 CFR 302-5.105 (1997).  The
paragraph lists four "[e]xamples of circumstances which might be considered beyond the
employee's control."  Ms. Ahlquist believes that her situation is covered by one of these
examples, "delayed occupancy of new permanent quarters because of unanticipated problems
(e.g., delays in settlement for new quarters, short-term delay in construction of a new
dwelling)."  JTR C13115-B.1.b.  The agency considered both this example and another --
"inability to locate permanent quarters adequate for family needs because of housing
conditions at the new [permanent duty station]," id. C13115-B.1.c -- before denying the
employee's request.

     We have recently described the standard under which we review agency
determinations regarding extension of the TQSE period:

     Because statute and regulation make the grant of additional time in which an
     employee may receive TQSE contingent on the existence of "compelling
     reasons" for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters, and afford an
     agency broad discretion in deciding whether such reasons are present, we will
     not overturn an agency's determination  as to an extension of the period unless
     we find it to have been arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Daniel A.
     Rishe, GSBCA 14444-RELO [98-1 BCA   29,677] (and cases cited therein);
     Baron L. Hudson, GSBCA 14284-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,527.

Rifat A. Ajjuri, GSBCA 14506-RELO (May 27, 1998).

     Under this standard, we cannot fault DFAS's decision not to extend the time within
which it would pay for Ms. Ahlquist's TQSE.  The high cost of new home construction in the
Wilmington area, while it may not have been anticipated by this employee, is not the sort of
short-term difficulty, beyond the employee's control, which might delay an employee's
occupancy of permanent quarters and thereby justify an extension of the TQSE period
consistent with the example cited by the claimant, particularly given the JTR's instruction to
hold such extensions to a minimum.  Ms. Ahlquist has presented no information on the basis
of which DFAS (or we) could conclude that the cost of new construction prevented her from
buying a residence.  Nor is the employee's inability to find an existing house with a floor plan
she liked proof that the could not locate permanent quarters adequate for family needs.  It
demonstrates merely that she chose not buy one of the many available homes because of
personal preference.





                              _________________________
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                              Board Judge