Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
            _______________________________________________
 
                              May 7, 1999
            _______________________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14871-RELO
 
 
                    In the Matter of KAREN R. BROWN
 
 
        Karen R. Brown, Fort Carson, CO, Claimant.
 
        O'Malley  Pitcher, U.S.  Army Community  and  Family Support
   Center, Department  of the  Army, Alexandria,  VA, appearing  for
   Department of the Army.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant,  Karen  R.  Brown,  a  civilian  employee  of  the
   Department  of the Army (agency), seeks reimbursement of expenses
   of selling  her home when she  was first employed by  the agency.
   The  agency correctly denied her claim, as statute and regulation
   did  not entitle her to reimbursement  of those expenses as a new
   appointee.
 
        The facts as stated  in the record are as follows.   In July
   1996,  claimant, a resident of Shoreline, Washington, applied for
   a senior accountant position in  Frankfurt, Germany with the Army
   Recreation  Machine Program (ARMP).   Claimant explains  that she
   accepted the position with the expectation that she  would remain
   in Germany for three to five  years.  She transferred to  Germany
   with  her  family and  subsequently  sold  her  house.    Because
   claimant was a new appointee, the agency did not authorize either
   reimbursement of her temporary  quarters subsistence expenses  or
   her real estate transaction expenses.  The closing on  claimant's
   house sale was  on October 17, 1996, and  she incurred $13,505.98
   of real estate transaction expenses.  
 
        Claimant did not realize her expectation as to the length of
   the overseas  tour of  duty. Shortly after  arriving in  Germany,
   claimant learned  that an  agency reorganization  might send  her
   back to the  United States.  The reorganization did occur and the
   agency moved ARMP to Colorado.  Claimant  spent twenty-one months
   in  Germany,  not  the expected  three-to-five  years.   Claimant
   transferred with ARMP in early July 1998. 
 
        In November  1998, claimant  submitted a  travel voucher  to
   ARMP  claiming the  $13,505.18 for  the  real estate  transaction
   expenses connected with her move to Frankfurt.  The agency denied
   the  request because  reimbursement  of  such  expenses  was  not
   authorized  for new  appointees by  statute,  the Federal  Travel
   Regulation or  the Joint  Travel Regulations.   Claimant  filed a
   claim at this Board.
 
        The agency  acted correctly in  denying the claim.   Statute
   and  regulation provide only  limited relocation benefits  to new
   appointees; those  limited benefits do  not include reimbursement
   of real estate transaction expenses.   5 U.S.C.   5723  (Supp. II
   1996);  41 CFR 302-1.10(f);  JTR C4051F; Charles  G. Bakaly, III,
   GSBCA 14750 (January  29, 1999), recon. denied. (April 22, 1999);
   William Archilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO, 97-1 BCA   28,799.  
 
        Claimant argues that: 
 
        I did not accept the position with ARMP because I had a
        burning  desire  to work  for the  Army and  learn more
        about  slot machines and amusement games.   I wanted to
        live and work in Germany for a few years and expose  my
        children   to another  culture and  other parts of  the
        world.  We  had a taste of that, but it ended too soon.
        Receiving  reimbursement for  the  costs of  selling my
        house    will  not replace  the  lost  [Living Quarters
        Allowance] and [Cost of Living Adjustment], but it will
        help us to recover financially  from our last two moves
        and get on with things.
 
        Here,  statute  and  regulation strictly  define  claimant's
   entitlement  as a  new  appointee.    No  diminished  expectation
   exception exists in the  law that would  allow us to expand  that
   entitlement.  We sustain the decision of the agency.
 
 
 
                            ____________________________
                            ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                            Board Judge