Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ October 2, 1998 ______________________ GSBCA 14611-RELO In the Matter of JOANNE BYRD Joanne Byrd, Christmas, FL, Claimant. Judy Hughes, Travel Policy, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Mrs. Joanne Byrd, an employee of the Department of Defense (DOD), asks that we review a determination of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) disallowing reimbursement of certain costs which she incurred in conjunction with her recent permanent change of station (PCS) move. Specifically, she seeks to recover, as miscellaneous expenses incident to her transfer, the costs of refurbishing rented property she vacated at her old permanent duty station (PDS) and the cost of connecting her gas cooking stove at her new residence. We find the agency's determination regarding the cost of refurbishing the rented property in accordance with applicable regulation. As to the cost of the gas hook-up, the agency now agrees that this is a reimbursable cost. Background On September 21, 1994, claimant was issued orders transferring her from Frankfurt, Germany, to Orlando, Florida. The orders authorized her to travel to her new PDS with one dependent. They also authorized the payment of miscellaneous expenses associated with the transfer. Among the claims submitted by Mrs. Byrd for reimbursement was one for $3775.50. This, she alleges, represents the cost of "refurbishing rental property in Germany to comply w[ith] rental agreement approved by U.S. Housing Referral Office." Claimant explains that on arrival in Frankfurt, she was advised that she would have to live in off-base housing and that any lease of off- base quarters would have to be approved by the Housing Referral Office (HRO). She complied with these instructions. The lease which she negotiated for the quarters she rented was eventually approved by the HRO. The lease contained a provision that the tenant, on vacating the premises, irrespective of the rental period, was to have the carpets cleaned and the house professionally "renovated" before turning it back to the landlord. The base finance office in Orlando denied Mrs. Byrd's claim for the cost of refurbishing her former residence in Frankfurt. In denying the claim, the office cited a decision of the Comptroller General, Irwin Kaplan, B-190815 (Mar. 27, 1978). In that decision, similar refurbishing costs were sought but denied on the ground that the costs in question were operating and maintenance costs which are unreimbursable. Mrs. Byrd, on reviewing the decision, however, points out that the claimant in that case, unlike herself, was not a renter but was the actual owner of the premises in question. A second claim denied to Mrs. Byrd was for $70, the cost of connecting her gas cooking stove. This claim was included with similar connection costs for water, electricity, and telephone. Mrs. Byrd contends that denial of the gas connection fee is totally inconsistent with the agency's allowance of the other three connection fees. Discussion The agency readily concedes that the denial of the gas connection fee is incorrect. With regard to the refurbishing charge, however, the agency remains convinced that the cost is not reimbursable as a miscellaneous expense incident to relocation. In its report, the agency refers us to another decision of the Comptroller General, Comp. Gen. Dec. B-161530 (June 14, 1967). In that decision, the claimant vacated his leased apartment as a result of a PCS move. He sought to be reimbursed for a non-refundable apartment cleaning charge for which he was responsible pursuant to the terms of his lease. Upon review of the terms of the claimant's lease, the Comptroller General denied the claim on the ground that the charge was similar to rent in that all tenants subject to such a lease would eventually be required to pay it. Mrs. Byrd, as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense, is subject to the provisions of the Department's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Chapter Nine of the JTR deals with the miscellaneous expense allowance incident to relocation of an employee's household. Section C9000 states: The miscellaneous expense allowance is for the purpose of defraying various contingency costs associated with relocation of a residence in connection with an authorized or approved permanent change of station (PCS). The allowance is related to expenses that are common to living quarters' furnishings, household appliances, and other general types of costs inherent in relocation of a place of residence . . . . A similar provision appeared in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) in effect at the time of Mrs. Byrd's transfer. See 41 CFR 302-3.1 (1994). From these regulations, it is apparent that to be reimbursable as a miscellaneous expense, the cost in question must be inherent in the relocation of the employee's residence in connection with an authorized or approved PCS. Both decisions of the Comptroller General cited by the agency properly denied the claims in question because the costs sought were not deemed to be inherent in the claimant's PCS relocation. In the Kaplan decision, the refurbishing costs incurred by the claimant/owner were viewed as nothing more than normal maintenance and operating costs. In the second decision, B-161530, the cleaning fee incurred by the claimant/lessee was viewed as little different from the rent to which a lessee is obligated by virtue of entering the lease. We find the analysis set out in these decisions of the Comptroller General, who prior to this Board settled claims such as this, to be sound and in accord with the applicable regulations. We follow it here. Mrs. Byrd believes that, because the HRO approved the lease which she negotiated with her landlord, the Government should respond for the cost of refurbishing the residence she rented while stationed in Frankfurt. The claimant provides us with nothing indicating why this should be. She states only that the need to occupy off-base housing and have any lease of that housing approved by the HRO stemmed from requirements of German law and the Status of Forces Agreement with the German Government. This is hardly enough to convince us that the Government should reimburse her for this cost. In short, we agree with the agency that the cost incurred by Mrs. Byrd in refurbishing her residence in Frankfurt was not a cost incident to her relocating to Orlando. Her obligation to refurbish the premises flowed directly from the lease itself. She became liable for this cost from the moment she entered into the lease. The duty to have the premises refurbished would have been triggered upon her vacating the premises at any time regardless of her reason for leaving. We, therefore, affirm the agency's denial of Mrs. Byrd's claim for the refurbishing cost. We likewise agree with the agency's recent conclusion that her claim for the one-time cost of connecting her gas cooking stove was improperly denied and should be paid. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge