Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405




 
                    __________________________

                        November 30, 2001
                    __________________________


                         GSBCA 15514-RELO


               In the Matter of WILLIAM D. PHILLIPS


     William D. Phillips, Layton, UT, Claimant.

     Dora R. Tunches, Chief, Civilian Transition and Training, Headquarters San Antonio
Air Logistics Center, Kelly Air Force Base, TX, appearing for Department of the Air Force.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     Claimant, William D. Phillips, an aerospace engineer with the Department of the Air
Force, seeks $14,854.62 in real estate transaction expenses he incurred when he sold his
home in connection with his transfer.  The agency correctly denied the claim because
claimant sold a home which was not the residence from which he regularly commuted to his
old duty station.

                            Background

     On April 12, 1999, claimant entered civil service as an intern at Kelly Air Force Base
(AFB), Texas, with the understanding that this base would close and his office's function
would be transferred to Hill AFB, Utah, by the summer of 2000.  Due to his upcoming
transfer, claimant maintained his home in Keller, Texas, some 282 miles from Kelly AFB,
and secured temporary quarters during the work week at Kelly AFB.  Claimant traveled to
his residence in Keller, Texas, almost every weekend (some fifty-one times) during his tenure
at Kelly AFB, and claimant's wife and daughter remained at the Keller residence during this
time to avoid disrupting his daughter's senior year at Keller High School.  Claimant
maintained his voter's registration, driver's license, and health insurance at the Keller, Texas,
address.

     In January 2000, claimant was formally notified that he was to report to Hill AFB on
July 17, 2000.  Claimant sold his Keller, Texas, home on May 31, 2000, and reported for duty
at Hill AFB as scheduled in July 2000.

                            Discussion

     Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), an employee is entitled to reimbursement
of allowable expenses for the sale of one residence at the employee's old duty station. 
41 CFR 302-6.1 (1999).  Residence means the "residence or other quarters from which the
employee regularly commutes from work."  41 CFR 302-1.4(k), 6.1(b).  The definition in the
Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) is substantively the same.  JTR C14000-A.  A commute is
regular when it is daily.  David Morell, GSBCA 15229-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,899.  As such,
claimant's weekend trips to Keller, Texas, did not satisfy the requirement that he "regularly
commute" from that residence in order to be reimbursed for real estate expenses.  Claimant
argues that the Keller house was actually his residence since claimant's family was in Keller,
his permanent, legal residence was in Keller, he voted in Keller, he obtained his driver's
license and health insurance there, and he returned there every weekend.  Those facts do not
establish the house as a "residence" for reimbursement purposes under the FTR or JTR. 
Rather, the abode must be the one from which the employee regularly commuted to and from
work on a regular, i.e., daily basis.  Paul Henderson, GSBCA 15480-RELO, 01-2 BCA 
 31,501; Morell, 00-1 BCA at 152,472; Michael L. Martin, GSBCA 13821-RELO, 97-2 BCA 
 29,142; John K. Bowman, B-247125 (June 12, 1991).

     The Board has consistently decided that an employee who commutes to work from
living quarters close to his duty station on a daily basis and returns only on weekends and
holidays to a residence where his family lives does not regularly commute from that
residence.  Mitchell J. Schutz, GSBCA 15521-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,461; Morell, 00-1 BCA
at 152,472; Ezzat Asaad, M.D., GSBCA 14484-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,667; David M.
Whetsell, GSBCA 14089-RELO, 98-1 BCA   29,610; Malcolm L. Jowers,
GSBCA 13727-RELO, 97-1 BCA   28,800.  Because Mr. Phillips did not regularly commute
to work from the house in Keller, he is not eligible to be reimbursed for the expenses he
incurred in selling that house.

     Nor would claimant have been entitled to real estate expenses when he entered
Government service.  Statute and regulation provide only limited relocation benefits to new
appointees; those limited benefits do not include reimbursement of real estate transaction
expenses.  5 U.S.C.   5723 (Supp. V 1999); 41 CFR 302-1.10(f); JTR C4051-F; Schutz,
01-2 BCA at 155,332; Charles G. Bakaly, III, GSBCA 14750, 99-1 BCA   30,249,
reconsideration denied, 99-1 BCA   30,367; William Archilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO,
97-1 BCA   28,799.


                             Decision

     The claim is denied.



                                   ________________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge