Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 September 25, 1998 GSBCA 14621-RELO In the Matter of AUDREY J. SHEGOG Audrey J. Shegog, Madison, AL, Claimant. Robert H. Garfield, Chief, General Law Division, United States Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL, appearing for Department of the Army. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Audrey J. Shegog, an employee of the Department of the Army's Aviation and Missile Command, asks us to overrule the Command's denial of her request for additional days of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) subsequent to her transfer from St. Louis, Missouri, to Huntsville, Alabama in 1997. Because the agency's denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, we do not take the action sought by Ms. Shegog. Statute prescribes that when an agency transfers an employee from one permanent duty station to another in the interest of the Government, the agency must pay to or on behalf of the employee subsistence expenses the employee and his immediate family incur while occupying temporary quarters, for a period of up to sixty days. (Alternatively, but not of relevance here, the agency may pay a fixed daily amount for subsistence expenses.) 5 U.S.C. 5724a(c)(1) (West Supp. 1997). The sixty-day period "may be extended for up to an additional 60 days if the head of the agency concerned or the designee of such head of the agency determines that there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters." Id. 5724a(c)(2). The regulation which implements this statute, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), explains that "[a] 'compelling reason' is an event that is beyond [the employee's] control and is acceptable to [his] agency." 41 CFR 302-5.105 (1997). The Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which supplement the FTR with applicability to civilian employees of the Department of Defense, are to like effect. JTR C13004A.2 (Aug. 1, 1995). 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. Rifat A. Ajjuri, GSBCA 14506-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,788; Daniel A. Rishe, GSBCA 14444-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,677; Baron L. Hudson, GSBCA 14284-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,527. The FTR gives four examples of events which are beyond an employee's control and may be acceptable to an agency as compelling reasons for extending the TQSE period. One of the events is "[the employee] cannot occupy [his] new permanent residence because of unanticipated problems (e.g., delay in settlement on the new residence, or short-term delay in construction of the residence.)" 41 CFR 302-5.105; see also JTR C13004A.2. Ms. Shegog maintains that this example is applicable to her situation. According to the information she has presented, Ms. Shegog began her work in Huntsville on August 5, 1997, but did not complete the purchase of a home in Alabama until November 10. The "unanticipated problems" which she identifies as preventing her from occupying the residence at an earlier date are (1) the relocation services company under contract with the Army did not purchase her St. Louis home until October 1; (2) she could not afford to buy a house in Alabama until she had sold the St. Louis residence; (3) the Alabama realtor assigned to her by this company did not inform her until mid-September that her license would no longer be valid after September 30; and (4) the house she eventually did buy was occupied by renters when she entered into a contract to purchase it. None of the factors stated by Ms. Shegog constitutes the sort of short-term delay, beyond the employee's control, which is necessarily a compelling reason for the agency to extend the TQSE period. A delay in settlement on the sale of a home at an employee's old duty station is not, standing alone, a compelling reason for extending the TQSE period. Roland J. Landis, GSBCA 13690-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,158. The sources of the delay here were the relocation services company's demand that the home be repaired and inspected prior to sale, and that delinquent mortgage payments (said to have been the responsibility of Ms. Shegog's sister) be made. The claimant has not shown that the company's demand was unreasonable, and the delinquencies, while Ms. Shegog may not have expected them, were under the umbrella of her responsibility to make payments, rather than acts of a third party or of God. Nor is the fact that the employee could not buy a new house until the old one had been sold, by itself, a compelling reason for extension. Michael E. Perez, GSBCA 14412-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,608; Hudson. The need to find a new realtor posed no particular problem for Ms. Shegog; less than a week after learning that she would have to do this, a different agent had shown her a house she liked so well that she signed a contract to buy it. Even if renters were occupying this house at the time the contract was signed, there is no evidence that their presence delayed settlement on the dwelling or the employee's moving into it; the only reason cited by Ms. Shegog for settlement not occurring earlier is the need of her mortgage lender to complete necessary paperwork. The problems that befell Ms. Shegog in her transfer to Alabama are the sorts of events that commonly occur when people move from one location to another. While we regret that they happened, we cannot find any indication in relevant statute or regulation that the writers of those documents intended that the Government be responsible for their consequences when they affect federal employees. The law provides transferred employees some protection against the financial impacts of being transferred -- but not comprehensive protection against all such impacts. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge