Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________________ June 30, 1999 __________________________ GSBCA 14851-RELO In the Matter of GLENDA T. HARVEY Glenda T. Harvey, Redstone Arsenal, AL, Claimant. Robert H. Garfield, Chief, General Law Division, United States Army Aviation and Missile Command, Department of the Army, Redstone Arsenal, AL, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Glenda T. Harvey, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army, seeks review of the agency's denial of her request for an extension of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) in connection with her transfer from St. Louis, Missouri to Huntsville, Alabama. Because we find that the Army's determination accords with applicable regulation and did not constitute an abuse of its discretion, we deny the claim. Background Ms. Harvey is a former employee of the United States Army Aviation and Troop Command (ATCOM) in St. Louis, Missouri. Under the Department of Defense's (DoD's) base realignment and closure activities, ATCOM was closed and its functions distributed to other DoD activities. The largest portion of the ATCOM workforce was relocated to Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama as part of the newly constituted United States Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM). Ms. Harvey was notified of her impending transfer to Huntsville on approximately May 10, 1997, with a reporting date of September 3, 1997. The agency authorized an official house hunting trip. Ms. Harvey apparently never sought reimbursement for such a trip, although she states that she made three trips to the Huntsville area prior to her transfer to look for housing. She also states, in her response to the agency's submission, that her official house hunting trip commenced on August 29 and ended on September 3, 1997. In conjunction with the move, she was authorized sixty days of TQSE. Ms. Harvey, who lives with a disabled cousin and that cousin's child, wanted an apartment with at least two bedrooms for her permanent housing. She was unable to qualify for subsidized, or low income, housing because her income was too high. Although it is not entirely clear from the documents and statements submitted by claimant, it appears that Ms. Harvey in fact commenced looking for suitable housing well before her scheduled transfer in September. She was offered several opportunities to rent three-bedroom units in the Flagstone complex, but declined several units offered in July and August, for September occupancy, first because she did not want to be "in the wooded area," and subsequently because she was unsure whether her family would be joining her. She later selected the Flagstone complex for temporary occupancy, but apparently did not want to move there permanently because of escalating rents, which had become too high for her means. Ms. Harvey contacted numerous apartment complexes in the Huntsville area but determined that suitable units were either not available when she needed them or too costly for her financial means. She requested an extension of TQSE because of her inability to locate suitable available housing for permanent quarters, but was informed by AMCOM that she did not qualify for such an extension. Discussion Employees who are "transferred in the interest of the Government from one official station or agency to another for permanent duty" are to be reimbursed for certain expenses incident to the transfer. These expenses include "[s]ubsistence expenses of the employee and his immediate family for a period of sixty days while occupying temporary quarters when the new official station is located within the United States." Reimbursement of TQSE may be extended for an additional sixty days if the head of the agency concerned or his designee determines that there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters. 5 U.S.C.A. 5724a(c)(1), (2) (West Supp. 1997). This statutory provision is implemented by provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and by the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which apply to civilian employees of the Department of Defense. Both the FTR and the JTR explain that a "compelling reason" is an event that is beyond the relocating employee's control and is acceptable to the agency. Here, claimant's principal reason for seeking an extension of TQSE is that she could not locate a satisfactory apartment within her price range during the period initially authorized. She thus maintains that the JTR exception pertaining to the inability "to locate a permanent residence adequate to the family's needs because of housing conditions at the new official station" should be applicable to her circumstances. JTR 13004-A-2; see 41 CFR 302-5.105 (1997). In reviewing claims of this nature, the Board has consistently recognized that agencies have considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant a transferring employee's request for an extension of TQSE. Victoria E. Caldwell, GSBCA 14666-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,364; Marjorie A. Ahlquist, GSBCA 14587-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,920; Rifat A. Ajjuri, GSBCA 14506-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,788; Baron L. Hudson, GSBCA 14284-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,527. The relocation of AMCOM's employees to Huntsville has generated a considerable number of claims seeking our review of denials of requests for extensions of TQSE. E.g., Susan C. Hickam, GSBCA 14641-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,298; Michael D. Haragan, GSBCA 14663-RELO (Oct. 1, 1998); Audrey J. Shegog, GSBCA 14621- RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,049; Bruce Park, GSBCA 14529-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,932; Kenneth W. Muzzo, GSBCA 14439-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,814; Michael T. Horan, GSBCA 14522-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,806; Rifat A. Ajjuri. The Board has acknowledged that, in preparing for the heavy volume of relocations caused by the consolidation of ATCOM into AMCOM, the Army developed a thoughtful and consistent rationale for reviewing the numerous requests for extensions of TQSE that it anticipated would be forthcoming. The Army took a variety of steps to facilitate the relocation process and to minimize the need for extensions of TQSE. In particular, the Army commissioned a survey of the housing conditions in the Huntsville area to determine what, if any, shortages existed. In this case, that survey did not identify a shortage in one and two bedroom apartments in the Huntsville area. Other steps intended to ease the transition from St. Louis to Huntsville included early notification of reassignments and the opportunity to take house hunting trips well in advance of planned moves. The record is unclear as to whether this claimant took advantage of the opportunity to take a house hunting trip prior to the move. If she did so, she did not request reimbursement from the Army. The information provided by claimant suggests that she had opportunities to obtain suitable housing in advance of the move, but for various reasons did not take advantage of them. Although other transferees from ATCOM to AMCOM have argued that inflated prices caused by the influx of 1500 or more new employees to the area made it difficult to locate suitable, affordable housing, this argument has been rejected by the Army as a justification for extending TQSE. Susan C. Hickam. The decisions cited above show that the Army has exercised exceptional consistency in its treatment of requests for extensions of TQSE in connection with the consolidation of ATCOM into AMCOM. Under the circumstances here, the Army had a reasoned basis upon which to deny claimant's request for an extension. The claim is denied. ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge