Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ December 9, 1998 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 14673-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES LISTER Charles Lister, Baltimore, MD, Claimant. Kevin Lanagan, Project Officer, Relocation Program, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, appearing for Social Security Administration. BORWICK, Board Judge. The Social Security Administration (agency) requests a decision pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3529 (section 3529 decision) in the matter of Charles Lister, claimant. The agency has requested advice from this Board on claimant's entitlement to reimbursement for certain relocation expenses pursuant to claimant's permanent change of station from Baltimore, Maryland to Fort Myers, Florida. Claimant, an employee of the Social Security Administration, shares a residence with a male companion. He wishes to be reimbursed for all of his relocation expenses, principally the transaction expenses associated with the sale of his residence, which he owned jointly with his partner, and purchase of a new residence. The claimant submits he has formed a household with his partner, but he disclaims a marriage relationship with that partner. Claimant does not claim that he is legally married under state law. The agency maintains that claimant is not entitled to full reimbursement of relocation expenses. It maintains that the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) does not recognize claimant's relationship as constituting an "immediate family" so as to entitle claimant to reimbursement of all transaction expenses for a jointly-owned residence with family members. The agency also notes that, while a "spouse" is usually considered a partner in marriage and that while some local jurisdictions recognize claimant's relationship as a marriage, "there is no federal statute of which it is aware that recognizes [the relationship] as a marriage." We consider that the agency is correct in its conclusion as to the extent of claimant's entitlement, but mis-focuses the issue on whether there is a federal statute which recognizes claimant's relationship as a marriage.[foot #] 1 Here, the claimant does not maintain that he has a marriage relationship with his partner. Rather, he maintains that this relationship creates a household, which should entitle him to full reimbursement of reasonable and allowable expenses under the FTR. Employees are entitled to reimbursement of transaction expenses for sale or purchase of a residence the title for which is "in the name of the employee alone, or in the joint names of the employee and one or more members of his/her immediate family." 41 CFR 302-6.1(c)(1)(1997).[foot #] 2 The FTR includes in its definition of "immediate family" the spouse, dependent children and dependent parents and siblings, 41 CFR 301-1.4(f), but does not include relationships such as the one described by the parties. The common definition of spouse is "one's wife or husband." Black's Law Dictionary 1402 (6th ed. 1990); Gloria M. La Doucer, B-258086 (Feb. 15, 1995). Claimant's partner is simply not an immediate family member as defined by the statute or the FTR. Consequently, the claimant is entitled only to a pro-rata share of incurred relocation expenses. Claimant relies upon the provisions of the Federal Employees Family Friendly Leave Act, 5 U.S.C. 6307(d)(1)[foot #] 3 for the proposition that his relationship should be considered a family relationship. That section has limited purposes--to define when federal employees may use sick leave and to allow transfers of federal employees' sick leave to family members as defined in Office of Personnel ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 This Board, as well as the General Accounting Office, the predecessor agency handling relocation claims, has, in the absence of contrary federal law, relied on applicable state law to determine issues of marital status. Thus, when an employee established that he and his wife had entered into a valid common law marriage in the state where they then resided (Alabama), we held that an employee could be reimbursed the cost of transaction expenses for a residence jointly held by the employee and the wife. James H. Perdue, GSBCA 14122-RELO, 98-1 _______________ BCA 29,674; cf. Gloria M. La Doucer, B-258086 (Feb. 15, 1995). ___ ___________________ [foot #] 2 This provision echoes the statutory requirement that title to the residence be in the name of the employee alone or in the joint names of the employee and a member of his/her immediate family. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(b)(6) (Supp. II 1996). [foot #] 3 Pub. L. No. 103-388, 108 Stat. 4079. (1994). ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Management (OPM) regulations.[foot #] 4 It does not change the conditions of entitlement to relocation benefits for federal employees, which are governed by separate statute and regulation. __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 4 The OPM definition includes as family members people who have a close association with a federal employee equivalent to a family relationship. 5 CFR 630.902 (1998).