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



                                               

                         February 1, 1999
                                               


                         GSBCA 14594-RELO


                 In the Matter of LISA F. PIERCE


     Lisa F. Pierce, Waldorf, MD, Claimant.

     E. F. Carey, Commanding Officer, Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station,
Washington, DC; and Jeffrey A. Epstein, Senior Assistant Counsel, Human Resources
Operations Center, Arlington, VA, appearing for Department of the Navy.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     In May 1995, the unit within the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station,
Washington (NAVCOMTELSTAWASHDC), in which Lisa F. Pierce was employed moved
from Cheltenham, Maryland to the Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.  Within two
months of the move, Ms. Pierce sold her house in Great Mills, Maryland, and relocated to
another home, which she purchased, in Waldorf, Maryland.  The new residence is much
closer to the Navy Yard than is the old one.  Ms. Pierce maintains that her relocation of
residence was incident to the change in her official station, and that she should consequently
receive reimbursement for the expenses of the relocation which are allowed by regulation.

     The Navy denied her claim, and Ms. Pierce asked this Board to review the
determination.  We reviewed the claim in light of the applicable regulations, 41 CFR
302-1.7(a) (1994) and JTR C4108.  We held that under these regulations, when an agency
relocates an employee to a new permanent duty station at least ten miles distant from the old
station, but within the same metropolitan area, the agency may not rely on a blanket
determination that no affected employees should receive relocation benefits.  Instead, the
agency must consider on an individual basis whether each affected employee who applies for
such benefits ought to receive them.  Consistent with this holding, we directed the Navy to
decide, applying the factors specified by regulation, whether Ms. Pierce's relocation from
Great Mills to Waldorf was incident to the agency's transfer of her duty station from
Cheltenham to Washington.  We further directed the agency to pay certain benefits to the
claimant in the event its determination was in the affirmative.  Lisa F. Pierce, GSBCA
14268-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,510.

     The Navy then denied Ms. Pierce's request for relocation benefits, and the claimant
returned to us for further consideration of her claim.  

     After both the agency and the claimant advanced their positions and responded to the
Board's questions, they entered into an agreement "in full and final settlement" of the case. 
As a part of the agreement, Ms. Pierce withdrew her request that we rule on her claim.  We
consequently dismiss the case.





                              _________________________ 
                              STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                              Board Judge