Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ November 17, 1999 __________________ GSBCA 15104-RELO In the Matter of JAMES D. FENWOOD James D. Fenwood, Vacaville, CA, Claimant. Cathrine L. Beaty, Director, Financial Management, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Agriculture. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. If two employees who are immediate family members are transferred from one permanent duty station to another, their agency might be able to reimburse each employee for relocation expenses separately, provided certain requirements are met. Background In July 1998, Laurie and James Fenwood were employed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in Washington, D.C. USDA offered Mrs. Fenwood a position in San Francisco, California, and she stated that she would accept the position only if her husband s duty station was also changed to San Francisco. Mr. Fenwood s supervisor agreed that it would be beneficial to the agency if Mr. Fenwood went to San Francisco with Mrs. Fenwood. In mid-August 1998, Mrs. Fenwood asked USDA to issue a travel authorization so that she could make a house hunting trip to San Francisco, move her household goods, incur reimbursable temporary quarters subsistence expenses, and travel one-way to San Francisco when she began her new job there in October 1998. Mrs. Fenwood s request listed Mr. Fenwood as a family member who would be moving with her. USDA issued Mrs. Fenwood s travel authorization in August 1998, and it showed that Mr. Fenwood would accompany her to San Francisco as her spouse. USDA did not issue a travel authorization to Mr. Fenwood. Later that month, when the Fenwoods were preparing to make their house hunting trip, Mr. Fenwood s personnel office had not yet informed him whether his transfer had been approved. Mr. Fenwood s supervisor told him that he should travel on Mrs. Fenwood s travel authorization as her spouse, and that USDA could remove his name from Mrs. Fenwood s travel authorization and prepare a separate travel authorization for him before the one-way trip to San Francisco. The Fenwoods made their house hunting trip in August 1998. In October 1998, when the Fenwoods were preparing to move to San Francisco, Mr. Fenwood contacted USDA s travel office and asked for his own travel authorization. The travel office informed Mr. Fenwood that because he was covered under his wife s authorization, the travel office could not issue a separate authorization for him. In December 1998, USDA processed the paperwork necessary to change Mr. Fenwood s duty station to San Francisco. That paperwork showed that the change in duty station was effective in October 1998, when Mr. Fenwood began working in San Francisco. Mr. Fenwood was not reassigned to a position in San Francisco. Instead, his permanent position in Washington, D.C. was transferred to San Francisco and Mr. Fenwood remains a Washington, D.C. office employee while he performs his duties in San Francisco. Mr. Fenwood claims that USDA should reimburse him for the house hunting trip and the one-way trip to San Francisco as if he had traveled under his own travel authorization, instead of traveling as Mrs. Fenwood s spouse. Although Mr. Fenwood has not asked USDA to reimburse him for any specific expenses, it is possible that the Fenwoods would be reimbursed for more of their travel expenses if USDA were to reimburse Mr. Fenwood separately from Mrs. Fenwood, instead of reimbursing him as her spouse. Discussion When an agency transfers an employee in the interest of the Government from one official station to another for permanent duty, the agency will reimburse the employee for certain expenses that the employee incurs in connection with the transfer. When, however, a transfer is made primarily for the convenience or the benefit of an employee, the agency may not reimburse the employee for the expenses incurred in connection with the transfer. 5 U.S.C. 5724 et seq. (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). When two employees who are members of the same immediate family are transferred, they can elect either (1) for both employees to be reimbursed separately for their expenses, or (2) for one employee to be reimbursed for his or her expenses and the other employee to be reimbursed solely as a member of the first employee's immediate family. If the employees elect to be reimbursed separately, the agency must not make duplicate payments for the same expenses. 41 CFR 302-1.8 (1998). In order to determine whether USDA should reimburse Mr. Fenwood separately for the expenses that he incurred in connection with his move to San Francisco, we must first determine whether Mr. Fenwood transferred from one official station to another for permanent duty and whether the transfer was in the interest of the Government or primarily for his convenience or benefit. It is clear that Mr. Fenwood was transferred from one permanent duty station to another, but it is not clear that his transfer was in the interest of the Government. Mr. Fenwood was transferred from one official station to another for permanent duty. Whether a duty station is permanent is a question of fact and is determined by where an employee expects and is expected to spend the greater part of his time. The papers processed by an agency are not conclusive proof of the location of an employee's permanent duty station. John P. DeLeo, GSBCA 14042-TRAV, 97-2 BCA 29,156. Beginning in October 1998, Mr. Fenwood began working in San Francisco. That is where he expected to spend the greater part of his time, and that is where USDA expected him to spend his time. Even though USDA did not process the paperwork related to Mr. Fenwood's transfer until December 1998, his permanent duty station changed to San Francisco in October 1998. We are not sure that Mr. Fenwood was transferred in the interest of the Government. USDA did not have a position in San Francisco for Mr. Fenwood to fill, and his transfer appears to have been made in order to accommodate him and his wife. Although Mr. Fenwood's supervisor determined that it would be beneficial to the agency if Mr. Fenwood went to San Francisco with Mrs. Fenwood, we have previously explained that a transfer that is "beneficial" to the Government is not necessarily a transfer that is in the interest of the Government. Steven D. Hanson, GSBCA 14270-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,314. We do not know whether Mr. Fenwood's supervisor was authorized to determine whether Mr. Fenwood's transfer was in the interest of the Government. If so, he needs to make that determination and his decision should take into account all of the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Fenwood s transfer. If Mr. Fenwood s supervisor was not authorized to determine whether Mr. Fenwood s transfer was in the interest of the Government, then the appropriate official needs to make that determination. If Mr. Fenwood s transfer was primarily for his convenience or benefit, USDA may not reimburse him separately for the expenses he incurred in connection with the transfer. Even if USDA determines that Mr. Fenwood's transfer was in the interest of the Government, it cannot reimburse him separately for the expenses that he incurred in connection with the August house hunting trip. In August, it was not certain that Mr. Fenwood would be transferred to San Francisco. Although Mr. Fenwood s supervisor wanted to assist the Fenwoods, USDA had not approved his transfer at the time the house hunting trip occurred. USDA could not have issued a travel authorization to Mr. Fenwood in August because it was not clear at that time that he would be transferred, and the only way that USDA could reimburse him -- at least in part -- for the expenses that he incurred as a result of the house hunting trip was as the spouse of Mrs. Fenwood, under her travel authorization. Mr. Fenwood believes that he should be reimbursed separately for the house hunting trip because he received inaccurate information from his supervisor when the Fenwoods were preparing to make that trip. It is not clear from the information in our file that Mr. Fenwood s supervisor provided him with any inaccurate information. Even if he did, inaccurate advice cannot serve as the authority to reimburse an employee in a manner not permitted by statute or regulation. Masood Badizadegan, GSBCA 14393-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,789. If USDA determines that Mr. Fenwood's transfer was in the interest of the Government, it can reimburse him separately for the expenses that he incurred in connection with the October one- way trip to San Francisco. USDA believes that it could not have issued a travel authorization to Mr. Fenwood in October because he was already covered by Mrs. Fenwood's travel authorization, and he cannot be reimbursed both separately and as Mrs. Fenwood's spouse. USDA is correct that Mr. Fenwood cannot be reimbursed separately and also as the spouse of Mrs. Fenwood, and that Mrs. Fenwood s travel authorization already provided for reimbursing Mr. Fenwood as her spouse. However, Mr. Fenwood was covered by Mrs. Fenwood s travel authorization because his transfer had not been approved when USDA prepared the authorization, and so USDA could not have issued a travel authorization to him. In October, when it was clear that Mr. Fenwood was transferring from one duty station to another, the regulation discussed above provided that the Fenwoods could elect to be reimbursed separately. Mr. Fenwood attempted to make such an election before the Fenwoods made their one-way trip to San Francisco in October. If USDA had honored Mr. Fenwood s election, it would have issued him a separate travel authorization, amended Mrs. Fenwood s authorization before her October travel began to remove Mr. Fenwood from her authorization, and reimbursed the Fenwoods separately for the October trip. Decision If USDA determines that Mr. Fenwood's transfer was primarily for his convenience or benefit, then USDA cannot reimburse Mr. Fenwood for his expenses other than as the spouse of Mrs. Fenwood. If, however, USDA determines that Mr. Fenwood's transfer was in the interest of the Government, then USDA can reimburse Mr. Fenwood separately for the expenses that he incurred in connection with the October one-way trip to San Francisco, but not for the expenses that he incurred in connection with the August house hunting trip. USDA cannot make duplicate payments for the same expenses. _____________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge