Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________ June 29, 1999 _______________ GSBCA 14963-RELO In the Matter of TAMMY CURRY Tammy Curry, Evansville, IN, Claimant. Ronald L. Page, Manager, Management Programs Division Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Transportation. NEILL, Board Judge. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3529 (Supp. III 1997), the Manager for the Financial Management Service Center of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asks our opinion regarding the propriety of reimbursing an employee for certain unexpired lease and storage costs. Based upon the record provided, we are of the opinion that the costs in question may be paid. Background On September 19, 1997, the FAA issued orders transferring Ms. Tammy Keilin from an FAA facility in Dayton, Ohio, to a facility in Evansville, Indiana. The reporting date for Ms. Keilin was January 4, 1998. The orders contained the usual authorization to transport and store for ninety days, the employee's household goods, not in excess of 18,000 pounds. An allowance for residence transaction and miscellaneous expenses was also authorized. These orders were amended in December 1997 changing the employee's maiden name of Tammy Keilin to her new, married name, Tammy Curry. Mrs. Curry did not report for duty in Evansville on January 4, 1998, but rather remained in Dayton for several months. In the meantime, arrangements were made for her to have special training at the FAA academy in Oklahoma City. This course was originally scheduled to begin on July 5, 1998, and to be of approximately six months' duration. The start date for the training was later changed to August 11, 1998. By memorandum dated June 4, 1998, Mrs. Curry asked that the authorization in her travel orders for ninety days' storage be extended by another ninety days since she would not be at her new permanent duty station (PDS) in Evansville until after completion of her training in Oklahoma City. This request was sent forward to the Air Traffic Division by the Hub Manager in Indianapolis. The Hub Manager's forwarding memorandum notes that the effective date of Mrs. Curry's assignment to Evansville was to be July 5, 1998, and that she was scheduled to report to Oklahoma City for training beginning July 7. The Hub Manager supported the request for an additional ninety days' storage by pointing out that staffing problems in Dayton had made it impossible for Mrs. Curry to make a house hunting trip to Evansville to locate permanent quarters to which her household goods could be sent while she was in training in Oklahoma City. On July 8, 1998, the Acting Manager of the Air Traffic Division approved the extension of the ninety day period in Mrs. Curry's orders by another ninety days. The memorandum granting the authorization refers to "Ms Tammie Curry, ATCS [Air Traffic Control Specialist], Evansville . . . , Indiana" and notes that she "will be in training from July 7, 1998, until November 15, 1998." On March 29, 1997, shortly before her marriage, Mrs. Curry and her soon-to-be husband signed a two-year lease of an apartment in the Dayton area. She and her husband continued to occupy their apartment until early August 1998, when Mrs. Curry left to start her training in Oklahoma City. Mrs. Curry's husband, who planned to move with her to Evansville, chose to give up his job at that time and to accompany her to Oklahoma rather than remain in the Dayton area until November. Discussion The agency explains that it has reimbursed Mrs. Curry for the unexpired lease costs from early November (when she finished training in Oklahoma City and actually went to Evansville) to March 31, 1999. It is not, however, convinced that the amounts due on the lease during the period Mrs. Curry was in training in Oklahoma City were costs incident to her permanent change of station (PCS) move. The agency points out that Mr. Curry, who was also liable for payments under the lease, could have remained in Dayton and continued to pay the rent until his wife's training was complete. In a similar vein, the agency questions whether the cost of storing Mrs. Curry's household goods while she was in training was a cost actually incident to her PCS move. The agency's concerns appear to be based upon the assumption that Mrs. Curry's training in Oklahoma City and her departure and the departure of her husband from Dayton immediately prior to the start of that training had nothing to do with her transfer to Evansville. Given these assumptions, her stay in Oklahoma City appears to have been nothing more than a temporary duty assignment away from her then-current PDS at Dayton. Admittedly, the United States Government does not normally pay the rent on an employee's residence and the cost of storing an employee's household goods when he or she is sent on this type of temporary assignment. The record furnished by the agency, however, does not support the assumptions underlying its concern. In the request to extend the authorized period of temporary storage for Mrs. Curry's household goods, the Indiana Hub Manager wrote that the effective date of Mrs. Curry's assignment was to be two days prior to the start of her scheduled training in Oklahoma City. As of that date, therefore, Mrs. Curry's PDS would be Evansville, not Dayton. The reply memorandum from the Acting Manager of the Air Traffic Division granted the requested change in the period of authorized storage and recognized Evansville as Mrs. Curry's new PDS prior to beginning her training. He referred to her as "Ms. Tammie Curry, ATCS, Evansville . . . , Indiana" who "will be in training from July 7, 1998, until November 15, 1998." As previously noted, the agency has already recognized that Mrs. Curry is entitled to the cost of settling her unexpired lease pursuant to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-6.2(h) (1997) (FTR 302-6.2(h)). The question posed here is from what point in time should the agency assume responsibility for settling the lease. Normally this would be from the date the employee leaves the old duty station to report to the new duty station. In this case, we see no reason why the agency should not pay the costs of settling Mrs. Curry's lease from the time her PDS became Evansville and she left Dayton. That date was first fixed for early July when the training was scheduled to begin on July 7. The date for the start of training was, however, changed to August 11. Presumably this change also resulted in a concomitant change in the effective date of her assignment to Evansville. Consequently, we believe it reasonable for the agency to assume that Mrs. Curry's new PDS became Evansville--when she left Dayton to begin her training in early August. Accordingly, we recommend use of that date rather than the date Mrs. Curry completed training in November as the date from which the costs of settling the lease should be paid. We see no problem in the departure of Mrs. Curry's husband from Dayton at the same time she herself left for training. The training took place after Evansville became her new PDS. Since it was the intention of her husband to accompany her to her new assignment in Evansville, we see nothing unusual about his leaving Dayton at the same time she did and accompanying her to Oklahoma City prior to their both going on to Evansville. As to the cost of storing the couple's household goods, we see no objection to the agency paying the cost of storage for the period the employee was in training in Oklahoma City. The FTR recognizes long-term training as a legitimate reason for extending the normal ninety-day period of authorized storage. FTR 302-8.2(d)(1). Furthermore, the training in question could hardly be viewed as associated with duties relating to the employee's old PDS at Dayton since, at the time she left Dayton to begin the training, her PDS was already recognized by agency officials as being Evansville, Indiana. In short, based on the materials provided to us by the agency, we conclude that Mrs. Curry is entitled to settlement of her unexpired lease beginning from the date in August when she and her husband vacated their apartment in Dayton. We likewise conclude that she is entitled to the cost of storing their household goods during the period of her training in Oklahoma City. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge