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

                          June  28, 2002
                      _____________________

                         GSBCA 15876-RELO

                 In the Matter of SHAUNA TURNBULL

     Shauna Turnbull, Yuma, AZ, Claimant.

     D. Mark Catlett, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management, Department
of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Ms. Shauna Turnbull, a former employee of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, asks that we review a ruling of the agency denying a claim for payment of temporary
quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for her daughter.  Ms. Turnbull contends that her
daughter's expenses were incurred in conjunction with her own transfer from one duty
station to another.  We affirm the agency's decision and, consequently, deny Ms. Turnbull's
claim.  

                            Background

     Effective January 16, 2001, Ms. Turnbull was transferred from her duty station at the
United States Navy offices in Newport, Rhode Island, to a new duty station at the offices of
the Department of Veterans Affairs in Bedford, Massachusetts.      Her travel orders indicate
that she was authorized subsistence expenses for herself and her family while occupying
temporary quarters for a period not to exceed thirty days. 

     Ms. Turnbull did not relocate immediately to a residence at or near her new duty
station in Bedford.  Rather, she remained with her daughter at their home in Seekonk,
Massachusetts, near her old duty station, and commuted daily to Bedford (a round trip of
approximately three hours).  Claimant's reason for remaining with her daughter at their home
in Seekonk was to permit her daughter to complete the eighth grade.  It was claimant's
intention to relocate to the Bedford area during the ensuing summer months.   

     Ms. Turnbull explains that, on starting work at her new duty station, she found to her
surprise that the travel requirements associated with the position were far more demanding
than she had been told they would be.  She writes that it soon became apparent that, with her
demanding travel schedule, she would have difficulty, as a single parent, caring for her
daughter no matter where the child went to school.  The situation was further complicated
when Ms. Turnbull was advised that her daughter had tested well in terms of academic
ability and would clearly benefit from a challenging academic program.

     After exploring various schooling options, Ms. Turnbull decided to enroll her
daughter in a private boarding school in Portsmouth, Rhode Island.   She arranged to move
her daughter and her daughter's household goods to the new school at the start of the fall
term on September 8.  Because her daughter's school was even farther away from Bedford
than was Seekonk, Ms. Turnbull decided to stay in Seekonk and delay her own relocation
to Bedford until she was certain that her daughter was well settled at the new school.

     In July 2001, Ms. Turnbull requested an advance in permanent change of station
(PCS) funds solely for her daughter.  Specifically, among other items, she sought  the cost
of  maintaining and lodging her daughter for the first thirty days at the new school in
Portsmouth.  In seeking this advance, Ms. Turnbull explained:  

          After researching schooling options in the area, I have opted to
     permanently relocate her to a residential school . . . in Portsmouth, RI.  . . . My
     plan is to allow [her] to take advantage of the opportunities at this site year
     round.  . . .  In January 2002, I do plan to permanently move from my home
     in Seekonk to a location closer to work in Bedford and I plan to execute my
     own personal PCS travel benefits.  [My daughter's] permanent address of
     record will be the new location, as she will be with me on holidays.

     The advance in PCS funds which Ms. Turnbull requested was not provided.  Her
subsequent claims for these costs, after they were actually incurred, also have gone  unpaid. 
The agency has explained to the claimant that it does not consider that the living
arrangements she made for her daughter at Portsmouth meet the requirements of temporary
quarters.  The agency notes that the claimant's daughter is not lodged in the vicinity of either
the old or the new duty station, the intent of the living arrangements is primarily to meet the
educational needs of the claimant's daughter and, finally, the arrangements made for the
daughter are permanent rather than temporary.   It is  this determination of the agency which
the claimant now asks us to review. 

                            Discussion

     The fundamental issue presented here is whether the living arrangements made by
claimant at her daughter's new school are in fact temporary quarters.  On occasion, this is
not an easy determination.  What is clear, however, is that under the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) as it read at the time of Ms. Turnbull's transfer and as it still reads, this
determination is left to the discretion of the employee's agency.  In making this
determination, the agency is expected to bear in mind such factors as:  duration of the lease,
movement of household effects into the quarters, the type of quarters, the employee's
expressions of intent, attempts to secure a permanent dwelling, and the length of time the
employee occupies the quarters.  See 41 CFR 302-5.305 (2000) (FTR 302-5.305).  

     Obviously, in the instant case not all the factors mentioned in the FTR are relevant. 
Of those that are, perhaps the most significant is the employee's actual expression of intent. 
In her request for an advance of PCS funds, Ms. Turnbull candidly outlined for the agency
her plans for her daughter's living arrangements.  She spoke of "permanently" relocating her
to a residential school and of having her daughter take advantage of the opportunities at this
site "year round."  Any new residence which the employee might eventually occupy in the
Bedford area would serve only as a "permanent address of record" based on the daughter's
visit there on holidays.  Given this indication of the employee's intent, the agency determined
that her daughter's stay at school in Portsmouth was not temporary.

     The agency's determination is correct.  It closely follows similar determinations which
this Board and the General Accounting Office, our predecessor in deciding relocation
claims, have made that the residence of a transferred employee's son or daughter in a college
dormitory does not qualify as temporary quarters.  Lee R. Vickson, GSBCA 13890-RELO,
97-1 BCA   28,959; James Y. Kurihar, B-164746 (Aug. 20, 1972).  

     Claimant, in commenting on the agency's report, contends that the living conditions
at her daughter's school do not meet the definition of "permanent."  This contention is hardly
persuasive.  As now made, it is unsupported and stands in sharp contrast with statements
made by claimant in July 2001 when she was seeking a PCS advance on her daughter's
behalf.  In any event, as we have already noted, the FTR leaves the determination of what
constitutes "permanent" quarters not to the employee but to the employee's agency.  Having
concluded that the agency's determination in this case is correct, we have no intention of
disturbing it.  

     Ms. Turnbull also disagrees with the agency's finding that her daughter's school is not
in the vicinity of either her old or her new duty station.  She states that the school is within
commuting distance of either.  From the record, it would appear that the school is
approximately seventy-five miles from Bedford while Seekonk is sixty-four from that town. 
While claimant may have the upper hand on this issue, it is of no benefit to her.  This issue
relates to a provision within the FTR which states that the employee and his or her
immediate family may occupy temporary quarters at Government expense within reasonable
proximity of the employee's old and/or new official stations.  Reimbursement for occupying
temporary quarters at any other location is not permitted, unless justified by special
circumstances reasonably related to the employee's transfer.  See FTR 302-5.9.  Since the
agency has already determined that the quarters for Ms. Turnbull's daughter at Portsmouth
were not temporary, the provisions of FTR 302-5.9   which deal with temporary quarters
  are inapplicable.

     An additional reason for rejecting Ms. Turnbull's claim of TQSE for her daughter can
be found in FTR 302-5.109, which states that the period for which the employee is
authorized to claim actual TQSE reimbursement must run concurrently with that for which
TQSE is authorized for a member of the employee's immediate family.  Obviously, the two
periods would not have been concurrent in the present case.  Claimant clearly explained to
the agency in July 2001 that it was her intention to claim TQSE for her daughter starting
September 8, 2001, while she, herself would defer claiming any PCS benefits until the start
of the following year.  

     For the reasons stated above, therefore, we affirm the agency's denial of Ms.
Turnbull's claim.  The claim is denied.  

                                        _____________________
                                        EDWIN B. NEILL
                                        Board Judge