Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 June 29, 1999 GSBCA 14977-RELO In the Matter of LINDA L. SHAW Linda L. Shaw, Parker, CO, Claimant. Mark B. Barta, Associate Counsel, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Linda L. Shaw, a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (DoD), claims entitlement to reimbursement of the expenses she incurred in purchasing a residence subsequent to a second relocation within a twelve-month period. We conclude that the agency properly denied her claim. In December 1995, DoD transferred Ms. Shaw from Beale Air Force Base (AFB), California, to Omaha, Nebraska. The following month, Ms. Shaw learned of a better job with the agency in Denver, Colorado. She applied for this position, was selected, and moved to the Denver area in February 1996. The travel orders for Ms. Shaw's relocation to Omaha stated that the transfer was in the interest of the Government, and they authorized reimbursement for a full panoply of relocation costs, including real estate transaction expenses. DoD did not issue travel orders for the relocation to Denver; Ms. Shaw accepted an agency determination that authorization of a second permanent change of station within a year would not be in the best interest of the Government. DoD later paid for the expenses Ms. Shaw incurred in selling her former residence in California, on the understanding that this transaction was associated with the agency-directed move from Beale AFB to Omaha. The agency has refused to pay for the costs the employee incurred in buying a residence near Denver, however. DoD rests its case on paragraph C4100-C of the Joint Travel Regulations. This paragraph states that the agency will not authorize a civilian employee to make more than one permanent change of station within a twelve-month period unless the additional move meets one of the following four conditions: (1) It involves a reduction-in-force or a transfer of functions. (2) It is in connection with an agency-directed placement. (3) It is, in certain circumstances, subsequent to an employee's return from an overseas duty station. (4) It is ordered by an official who certifies that (a) the transfer is in the interest of the Government, (b) an equally qualified employee is not available within the commuting area of the component concerned, and (c) the losing component agrees to the transfer. The paragraph explains that the policy restricting transfers "will not preclude an employee from accepting a position, but it may cause the employee to move at his/her own expense." DoD observes that none of the four specified circumstances applied to Ms. Shaw's move from Omaha to Denver. Consequently, the agency maintains, this move had to be made at the employee's own expense. DoD asserts that because Ms. Shaw's purchase of a home in the Denver area was incident to this relocation, and not to her transfer from Beale AFB to Omaha, the agency is not responsible for the transaction expenses associated with this purchase. Ms. Shaw sees the situation differently. From her perspective, in sending her from Beale AFB to Omaha, DoD agreed to reimburse her for the expenses of buying a home from which she would commute daily to a DoD job. While the home she purchased is not near Omaha, where the agency expected her to buy, she believes that should make no difference. Ms. Shaw maintains that she is doing in Denver precisely what DoD wanted her to do in Omaha: performing valuable work for the agency. She never bought a residence in Omaha, and she herself paid all costs of moving from that city to Denver. Ms. Shaw consequently believes that the agency should fulfill the promise it made when it issued the initial travel orders. Ms. Shaw also says that she was led to believe, before moving to Denver, that all permanent change of station entitlements previously authorized would continue to be available to her. She maintains that an intra-agency memorandum supports this belief. Unfortunately, the memo does not do this. It asks, "Is the government's obligation to provide PCS entitlements to Omaha canceled or otherwise limited by Ms. Shaw's acceptance of a job at Denver?" and expresses concern that the answer may be in the affirmative. There is nothing in the record indicating that the agency responded to the question before the employee moved to Denver. We think that DoD's understanding is correct. Under statute, an agency is obliged to reimburse an employee for costs of relocation, including real estate transaction expenses, only if the employee is "transferred in the interest of the Government." 5 U.S.C. 5724(a), 5724a(a) (1994). "When a transfer is made primarily for the convenience or benefit of an employee, . . . or at his request," on the other hand, these costs "may not be allowed or paid from Government funds." Id. 5724(h). Ms. Shaw relocated twice -- once to Omaha, at the direction of the agency, and the second time to Denver, at her own option. The first statutory provision applied to the first move and the second provision to the second move. Because the second relocation was made primarily for Ms. Shaw's benefit, the agency may not pay for the costs resulting from that move. Once Ms. Shaw began the job in Denver, she had no need for a residence in Omaha, and DoD's commitment to pay for the expenses associated with the purchase of such a house was extinguished. It would have been preferable for the agency to have communicated this result to Ms. Shaw, by way of answer to the question posed in the cited memorandum, before she decided to take the job in Denver, rather than after. Regardless of the time at which the message was conveyed to the employee, however, DoD acted in accordance with law in not paying for the expenses in question. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge