Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ July 1, 1999 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 14930-RELO In the Matter of TERRY M. NEELEY Terry M. Neeley, Woodbridge, VA, Claimant. Edgardo Aviles, Accounting Services Division, United States Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of the Treasury. BORWICK, Board Judge. Claimant, Terry M. Neeley, a civilian employee with the United States Customs Service, seeks reimbursement totaling $2200 for lease breaking expenses incurred when the agency canceled his permanent change of station from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco, California. The agency reimbursed claimant $1399.20 under the miscellaneous expense allowance of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and concluded that it could not pay more. Under the circumstances, we conclude the agency correctly denied the claim. In August 1998 the agency told claimant that it would transfer him to San Francisco, and in September claimant went on a house hunting trip there. While in San Francisco, claimant entered into a residential lease which required a $2200 non- refundable deposit, and claimant gave the landlord a check for that amount. Later in September, after claimant returned to Washington, D.C., the agency canceled his transfer to San Francisco and reassigned claimant to Baltimore, Maryland. Claimant forfeited his deposit and submitted an expense voucher to the agency for, among other items, the $2200 cost of the forfeit. The agency reimbursed claimant $1399.20 under the miscellaneous expenses allowance provision of the FTR, up to the GS-13 cap. Claimant seeks reimbursement of the additional $800.80. The General Accounting Office has allowed reimbursement of forfeited lease deposits after canceled transfers under the miscellaneous expense provision of the FTR. Lucki S. Latimer, B- 191676 (Nov. 2, 1978); cf. Marvin K. Eilts, 63 Comp. Gen. 93 (1983) (security deposit, forfeited by agency delay in establishing new permanent duty station, payable under miscellaneous expense allowance). Statute and the FTR cap the miscellaneous expense allowance at either one or two weeks pay (depending on the employee's family status) at the maximum rate payable for a GS-13. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(f)(1)-(2) (Supp. III 1997); 41 CFR 302-3.3 (1998). The FTR does permit a more generous reimbursement for "expenses incurred for settling an unexpired lease . . . for residence quarters occupied by the employee at the old official station." 41 CFR 302-6.2(h) (1998); see Tracie Grisham-Sanders, GSBCA 13723-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,063. The record, however, does not demonstrate that this provision is applicable because there is no showing that San Francisco was claimant's old official station or that claimant ever occupied the premises in San Francisco. The agency acted correctly in denying the claim as there is no entitlement to reimbursement of the full $2200. Since the claimant signed the lease and paid the deposit in good faith reliance on the agency's word that he would be transferred to San Francisco, and was forced to forfeit the deposit when the agency canceled the transfer, the Board sends this matter to the Administrator of General Services for possible referral to the Congress as a meritorious claim under the Meritorious Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3702(d). __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge