Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
            _______________________________________________
 
                           November 30, 1999
            _______________________________________________
 
 
                            GSBCA 14910-RELO
 
 
                 In the Matter of CHATURBHUJ N. GIDWANI
 
 
        Chaturbhuj N. Gidwani, Alexandria, VA, Claimant.
 
        R.  Michael  Imphong,   Chief,  Allowances  Unit,  Personnel
   Resources  Compensation and Entitlements,  Department of  the Air
   Force, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Air Force.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        Claimant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Chaturbhuj
   N. Gidwani, GSBCA 14910-RELO, 99-2 BCA   30,504.  For the reasons
   below, we deny reconsideration.  
 
        In  Gidwani, we concluded that the agency s decision denying
   claimant an  extension of the  period of time to  incur temporary
   quarters   subsistence  expense  (TQSE)  was  not  arbitrary  and
   capricious.     We  decided that  the  agency did  not  abuse its
   discretion  in concluding  that  claimant  had  not  demonstrated
   compelling  reasons for the extension, due to circumstances which
   were determined to be beyond the employee s control and which had
   occurred  during  the  original  sixty-day  period  of  temporary
   quarters occupancy as required by statute and the then applicable
   version of the  Joint Travel Regulations.  Claimant had requested
   a  sixty-day extension  of  TQSE  on December  3,  1997, and  had
   entered a contract for the construction of a new home on February
   21, 1998, with an expected move-in date  at the end of June 1998.
   We cited the extensive case  law from this Board and  the General
   Accounting Office holding that when an employee enters a contract
   to build  a house with  an anticipated completion date  after the
   expiration  of the initial TQSE period,  the late completion date
   is not an unanticipated event beyond the employee s control.  
 
        In support of  reconsideration, claimant states that  he did
   not transfer  from  the United  States Army  Corps of  Engineers,
   Frankfurt Germany.   The  travel orders  indicate he  transferred
   from Wuerzburg, Germany.  Claimant disputes our finding about the
   house hunting  trip.   The agency earlier  stated that  the house
   hunting trip was unauthorized.  Claimant  states that his two-day
   house  hunting  trip  was  authorized.    Assuming  claimant  was
   transferred  from Wuerzburg, not Frankfurt, and assuming that the
   house hunting trip was authorized, the result does not change.  
 
 
        Claimant restated arguments he made before in justifying his
   request for  an extension  of  the TQSE  period that he  received
   insufficient advice for his move and that there was a shortage of
   housing at  his new  permanent duty station  (PDS),   Bolling Air
   Force  Base.    Claimant  has  not   explained  how  the  alleged
   insufficient advice was connected to his request for an extension
   of TQSE.  
 
        As for the alleged lack of housing at claimant s new PDS, we
   noted in our decision that during claimant s  house hunting trip,
   claimant had  inspected a number  of homes in  the area, but  had
   chosen not to  rent or purchase one of those homes.  Claimant has
   not demonstrated that  a lack of housing reasonably  near the new
   PDS compelled  claimant to  purchase a  house under  construction
   that would  not be completed  until well after the  expiration of
   the TQSE  period, or why  claimant s decision to so  proceed made
   the agency s decision  to deny claimant an extension  of the TQSE
   period  arbitrary   and  capricious.    Claimant s   request  for
   reconsideration is denied.
 
 
                                 __________________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                 Board Judge