Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ July 22, 1999 _______________________________________________ GSBCA 15053-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES G. BAKALY, III Charles G. Bakaly, III, Washington, DC, Claimant. Jay Apperson, Deputy Independent Counsel, Office of the Independent Counsel, Washington, DC, appearing for Office of the Independent Counsel. BORWICK, Board Judge. This matter is before us for a third time. In Charles G. Bakaly, III, GSBCA 14750-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,240, the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) requested advice pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3529 (1996) as to whether it could pay full relocation expenses to claimant as a transferred employee for claimant's move, three months after claimant's initial appointment, from Los Angeles, California to Washington, D.C. The OIC had interpreted 28 U.S.C. 594(b)(2) and (3)(A) as allowing it to deem Los Angeles as claimant's official duty station for the purpose of triggering entitlement to full relocation benefits. We concluded that payment of full relocation benefits could not be justified solely on the agency's interpretation of those statutory provisions. We stated, however, that "if the OIC could demonstrate that claimant performed actual and substantial duties for the OIC in Los Angeles, during the period April to September 1998, then we would have no basis to question Los Angeles as a proper official or permanent duty station from which claimant was transferred to Washington, D.C." Id. The agency filed for reconsideration, arguing that 28 U.S.C. 594(b)(2) and (3)(A) constituted a de jure designation of an appointee's residence as his or her official duty station. We rejected that argument insofar as it pertained to the claimant's relocation benefits at issue. We restated the actual and substantial duty test for defining a place as an employee's official duty station. Charles G. Bakaly, III, GSBCA 14750-RELO (Apr. 22, 1999). The agency has now presented evidence that it maintains shows claimant performed actual and substantial work for the OIC in Los Angeles beginning in April 1998, before his transfer to Washington, D.C. According to the agency: Mr. Bakaly's submission, which this office does not dispute, shows he was physically in Los Angeles working on matters for [the agency] for extended periods of time virtually from the moment he was sworn in on April 3, 1998. These duties included conferring with media personnel regarding this office's investigations, devising investigative and communications strategies, and conducting research on the [agency's] investigation as reported in the media and reviewing internal memoranda regarding the investigation. While in Los Angeles, Mr. Bakaly also engaged in numerous telephone conferences with personnel of this office. These activities, as well as other factors, satisfy the standards for demonstrating that Los Angeles was Mr. Bakaly's official duty station for the purpose of receiving relocation benefits. Mr. Bakaly states that while working from his duty station in Los Angeles, from April through August 1998, he devoted more than 450 hours to the development and implementation of a communications strategy for the OIC. In support of this statement, Mr. Bakaly has submitted redacted copies of two- to three-page memoranda on communications strategy he wrote for the agency while he was in the Los Angeles area. Claimant has also submitted time sheets for the period April 23 through July 12 showing claimant worked over 600 hours for the OIC while in the Los Angeles area.. Whether a location is to be considered a permanent duty station is a question to be determined from the orders directing the assignment and from the nature and duration of the assignment. Cf. In re Wegner, 69 Comp. Gen. 134 (1988) (temporary duty station versus permanent duty station). Here the OIC has determined that claimant performed real and substantial work for the agency in Los Angeles before claimant's transfer to Washington, D.C. That determination is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious. We conclude, based on the evidence in this recent submission, that the OIC could properly treat Los Angeles as claimant's permanent duty station before claimant's transfer to Washington, D.C. for the purpose of determining the extent of his relocation benefits. We do not consider whether claimant's subsequent resignation before the expiration of one year's service with the OIC affects claimant's right to relocation benefits or whether the specific amounts claimed are otherwise allowable. The agency has not presented those matters to us for decision under 31 U.S.C. 3529. Thus, those issues do not fall within our delegated authority to examine. ______________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge