____________________________

                               July 25, 1997
                       ____________________________


                             GSBCA 13690-RELO


                     In the Matter of ROLAND J. LANDIS

     Roland J. Landis, Jacksonville, FL, Claimant.

     G. A. Terrill and Judy Hughes, Travel Division, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for
Department of the Navy.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     At issue in this case is claimant's entitlement to a sixty-day
extension of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE).  The
Disbursing Officer, Personnel Support Activity, Department of the
Navy, Jacksonville, Florida, denied the extension request pursuant
to Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) paragraph C13004-A.2, and
claimant filed this claim with the General Accounting Office
(GAO).  Because claimant has failed to demonstrate a compelling
reason beyond his control warranting an extension of TQSE, we
conclude that the agency properly denied the request.

                                Background

     Claimant was transferred from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to
Mayport, Florida, on September 1, 1994, and he and his three
dependents began occupying temporary quarters on September 2. 
Prior to his relocation, claimant applied for and was granted sixty
days of TQSE.  After his relocation to Florida, claimant applied
for an extension of TQSE.  On October 29, claimant's spouse broke
her ankle, which required surgery.  Claimant's spouse was bedridden
for six weeks and barely ambulatory for another three weeks
thereafter.  However, one day after his spouse's injury, on
October 30, claimant contracted to purchase a home which was to be
completed in ninety days, contingent upon the successful sale of
his home in New Jersey.  The construction company would not start
building the new home until claimant had a contract to sell his
New Jersey home.  The company gave claimant sixty days -- and later
an additional thirty days to sell his New Jersey home.  When
claimant had not sold his New Jersey home in ninety days, the
construction company cancelled his contract.

     On November 12, claimant received his orders authorizing a
thirty-day extension of TQSE, and he received a check reflecting
this TQSE amount in December 1994.  Just prior to receiving this
check, claimant applied for an additional thirty-day extension of
TQSE which was later granted.  However, on January 30, 1995,
claimant received a letter from the agency's Commanding Officer in
Jacksonville, Florida, which stated that he did not meet the
criteria necessary for any TQSE extension.  Furthermore, the letter
requested that claimant pay back the amount which he had received
in December 1994 reflecting the first thirty-day extension of TQSE.

     According to claimant, his son was scheduled to start college
in September 1994, but he had to delay matriculation to help
support two households in Florida and New Jersey.  As of
September 21, 1995, claimant had still not purchased a home in
Florida.

                                Discussion

     Statute provides that the Government shall pay certain
expenses incurred by its employees who are "transferred in the
interest of the Government from one official station or agency to
another for permanent duty."  These expenses include "[s]ubsistence
expenses of the employee and his immediate family for a period of
60 days while occupying temporary quarters when the new official
station is located within the United States [or other specified
locations]."  "The period of residence in temporary quarters may be
extended for an additional 60 days if the head of the agency
concerned or his designee determines that there are compelling
reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters." 
5 U.S.C.  5724a(a) (3) (1994).

     The payment of these expenses is not an entitlement, however;
it must be made "[u]nder such regulations as the President may
prescribe and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate,
as provided therein."  5 U.S.C.  5724(a); Thomas M. Hood,
GSBCA 138450-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,957; Thomas H. Potts,
GSBCA 13700-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,938.  The President has delegated
to the Administrator of General Services the authority to issue
these regulations, which are part of the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR).  Exec. Order No. 11,609, 3 CFR 586 (1971-1975), reprinted as
amended in 3 U.S.C.  301 app. at 467-68 (1994); 41 CFR ch. 302
(1996).

     At the time of claimant's relocation, FTR 302-5.2(a)(2)
provided, in relevant part:

     Subsistence expenses . . . may be allowed for an
     additional period of time not to exceed 60 consecutive
     days provided the head of the agency, or his/her
     designee, determines that there are compelling reasons
     for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters. . . . 
     Authorizations to extend the temporary quarters period
     and the number of days authorized shall be held to a
     minimum.

     Extensions of the temporary quarters may be authorized
     only in situations where there is a demonstrated need for
     additional time due to circumstances which have occurred
     during the initial 60-day period of temporary quarters
     occupancy and which are determined to be beyond the
     employee's control and acceptable to the agency. 
     Examples of compelling reasons which could  be considered
     as beyond the employee's control may include, but are not
     limited to, the following situations:

          (i)  Shipment and/or delivery of HHG
          [household goods] to new residence is delayed
          due to extended transit time incident to ocean
          transportation, strikes, customs clearance,
          hazardous weather, fires, floods or other acts
          of God, or similar events.

          (ii) New permanent residence cannot be
          occupied because of unanticipated problems
          (i.e., delays in settlement on new residence,
          short term delay in construction of new
          residence, etc.).

          (iii)  Inability to locate permanent residence
          which is adequate for family needs because of
          housing conditions at the new official
          station.

          (iv) Sudden illness, injury, or death of
          employee or immediate family member.[]

     In the present case, claimant cites three reasons for an
extension of TQSE:  (1) the injury sustained by his wife which
allegedly delayed the location of a permanent residence;
(2) claimant's difficulty in selling his New Jersey home which in
turn delayed the construction of a permanent home in Florida; and
(3) his son's delay in starting college so he could help support
two households.

     As the Comptroller General recognized, the serious illness or
injury of an employee's immediate family member might be considered
a compelling reason for extending TQSE if the injury prevented
claimant from locating a permanent residence.  E.g., Darold D.
Foxworthy, B-241761 (Apr. 15, 1991). However, in the instant case,
the agency reasonably determined that claimant's spouse's broken
ankle did not warrant extending TQSE.  Claimant's spouse sustained
her ankle injury on October 29, and claimant signed a contract to
purchase a home on October 30, one day after her injury.  The time
frame of only one day between the injury and the contract for sale
indicate that the injury did not delay the selection of a permanent
residence and, therefore, did not necessitate an extension of TQSE.

     The second issue is whether claimant's inability to sell his
New Jersey home constituted the type of unanticipated settlement
delay, or short-term construction delay which would warrant an
extension of TQSE under the applicable regulations,
FTR 302.5-2(a)(2) and JTR C13004-A.2(b).  Claimant argues that
since the construction company would not start building his home in
Florida until he had a contract to sell his home in New Jersey,
there existed a short-term construction delay which also provided
a basis for an extension of TQSE.  Claimant further notes that his
inability to sell this home prevented him from obtaining a mortgage
on any other property.

     The Comptroller General concluded that agencies properly
denied extensions of TQSE when an alleged settlement delay was
caused solely by a claimant's inability to sell a home at the old
duty station within the initial TQSE period.  Blanch Brown,
B-260580 (Nov. 13, 1995); Michael F. Locke, B-221751 (July 11,
1986).  These GAO decisions have made it clear that "the fact that
an employee has not yet sold his former residence within the
initial 60-day period may not, in itself, be considered the
circumstance which gives rise to the need for an additional period
of temporary quarters occupancy."  Locke.

     Nor is claimant's son's delay in starting college a
circumstance which prevented claimant from occupying a permanent
residence.  If anything, it was an unfortunate result of claimant's
inability to sell his former home.  As such, in this case,
claimant's son's delay in starting college is not a compelling
circumstance warranting an extension of TQSE.

     Claimant's final contention stems from the erroneous issuance
by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard of an extension of TQSE. 
Claimant asserts that it is unfair that the TQSE extension which
was initially granted by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was later
rescinded by Defense Finance and Accounting Service.  However, the
initial determinations were impermissible under governing
regulations.  Although the rescission was unfortunate, in that it
caused claimant to return money he had been given, it was in
accordance with those regulations.  It is well established that
Government error is not binding and provides no basis for
reimbursement. Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S.
415 (1990); Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688
(Nov. 8, 1996).

                                 Decision

     The claim is denied.



                                   __________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge