Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ March 19 , 1999 ________________________________ GSBCA 14670-RELO In the Matter of JANICE E. MILLER Janice E. Miller, Dixon, CA, Claimant. Janet A. Powers, Chief, Affirmative Employment Civilian Personnel, Headquarters Sacramento Air Logistics Center, McClellan Air Force Base, California, appearing for Department of the Air Force. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. In this case claimant seeks an extension of the two-year time limitation for reimbursement of real estate closing costs in conjunction with her permanent change of station (PCS) from Travis Air Force Base (AFB) to McClellan AFB. Claimant originally did not purchase a home at McClellan because her organization was scheduled to move to another location within the year, but this move was continuously delayed. Due to these delays, claimant continued to rent an apartment, but then competed for and accepted a new permanent position at McClellan. When claimant realized she would be remaining at that location, she requested an extension of the two-year period prior to its expiration. Claimant then purchased a home, but the closing occurred outside the two-year time frame. The agency refused to extend the two-year limitation, stating that claimant s personal decision, not extenuating circumstances, caused the delay. We deny the claim, finding that the agency's determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Background Effective February 17, 1996, claimant, a logistics specialist, was transferred from Travis AFB to McClellan AFB, California. In conjunction with her transfer, claimant was authorized to receive reimbursement for real estate transaction expenses. When claimant accepted the position at McClellan, she was told that her organization would be moving to March AFB within the year. Claimant did not attempt to purchase a home, but rented an apartment, signing a six-month lease. Claimant was to be a member of the advance team reporting to March AFB in October 1996, but that date slipped -- first, until June-July 1997, then, until October 1997, and eventually until April 1998. In August 1997, claimant accepted a temporary position as a plans and readiness specialist at McClellan, but she was still obligated to move to March AFB. On December 13, 1997, the temporary position at McClellan was reclassified as a permanent position, and claimant was competitively selected to fill that position. Claimant accepted this permanent position at McClellan effective December 21, 1997. Since claimant now knew that she would be permanently staying at McClellan and not moving to March, she began looking for a home. In January 1998, claimant made an offer to purchase a home and once she qualified for the loan, requested an extension of the two-year time limit before it expired. The closing on the home occurred on March 31, 1998. The agency denied claimant's request for an extension stating as follows: A request was received in our PCS Office from Janice E. Miller to extend real estate entitlement for an additional year, that request was denied. A review of her file indicates that based on the information provided by Ms. Miller, it was a personal decision to delay the purchase of real estate not extenuating circumstances. Also, there was no evidence that an active effort was made by Ms. Miller to purchase a residence within the two year time limitation. Discussion As we recognized in Larry E. Olinger, GSBCA 14566-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,877, "Regulation 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 reimbursed for expenses incurred in the purchase of a home at the new duty station." The Board in Olinger went on to articulate a three-part test for an agency to apply in considering such an extension: 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. Olinger, 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. In the instant case, the agency stated that based upon the record the claimant had not established extenuating circumstances and that it was claimant's personal decision to delay the purchase. The record indicates that claimant delayed purchasing a home at McClellan because her organization was soon going to be transferred again, which would have necessitated another relocation. However, claimant's purchase of a home at McClellan was not reasonably related to her initial transfer to McClellan but rather to her selection for the new position. Thus, the agency reasonably determined that claimant's decision to remain at McClellan was personal, based upon her selection for a different position than the position to which she was initially transferred and that extenuating circumstances justifying an extension of the two-year limitation did not exist. As the Board emphasized in Olinger, these determinations by agencies are subjective. Because the agency has broad discretion, the Board will only disturb the agency's determination if it is arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous. Olinger, 98-1 BCA at 113,480. Here, the agency's determination cannot be so characterized. Decision This claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge