________________________________________
                                    
                             August 25, 1997
                ________________________________________
                                    

GSBCA 14034-RELO


In the Matter of D. LARRY FRASER


     D. Larry Fraser, Jacksonville, FL, Claimant.

     Ivan Lawson, Chief, Travel Branch, United States Customs
Service National Finance Center, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for
Department of the Treasury.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     D. Larry Fraser, claimant, an employee of the United States
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, requested reimburse-
ment of $6,094.80 for real-estate expenses allegedly incurred in
purchasing a new house in Miami, Florida, claimant's most recent
duty station.  Claimant also requested expenses of $1,045.75 for a
house-hunting trip.  The agency denied the claim because claimant
owned a residence in Miami and was not entitled to expenses
associated with purchasing a second residence.  Claimant filed a
claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO), which issued an
initial denial.  D. Larry Fraser, Z-2869719 (Mar. 5, 1996). 
Claimant sought reconsideration.  We sustain the decision of the
agency.  

     To understand the issue presented, it is necessary to describe
claimant's peripatetic career.  Claimant was permanently stationed
in Miami, and in 1983, purchased a townhouse there.  In February
1991, the agency permanently transferred claimant to Tampa,
Florida.  Claimant kept his house in Miami.  In February 1992, the
agency transferred claimant to Washington, D.C.  Claimant then
rented out his townhouse in Miami, with the expectation of selling
it upon his next permanent transfer.  The lease is cancelable upon
one hundred days notice by the landlord.  His townhouse was
severely damaged by Hurricane Andrew, but, with repairs, was made
habitable.  Claimant's tenants continued to live in the townhouse. 
During claimant's tour of duty in Washington, D.C., claimant rented
a house as his residence.  

     In April 1993, the agency informed claimant of his impending
permanent transfer back to Miami, Florida.  The agency cut orders
authorizing a house-hunting trip and relocation expenses.  On the
last day of claimant's house-hunting trip, claimant received a call
from the agency advising him that he was ineligible for reimburse
ment of real estate expenses because he owned a residence in Miami. 
Claimant was then in the final stages of negotiating a contract for
the purchase of a new home; he elected to complete the purchase. 
  
     The agency argues that claimant is not entitled to reimburse
ment of real estate expenses because "he should have moved back
into his old home."  The agency argues that the expenses of his
house-hunting trip were "unnecessary and avoidable."  

     Claimant maintains that he is entitled to reimbursement of
real estate expenses because his old house is unsuitable due to 
(1) the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew, (2) the fact that the
townhouse was repaired with renters in mind, (3) an undesirable
change in the characteristics of the neighborhood, and (4)
claimant's elevated social status arising from his promotion to a
senior position within the agency.  For the house-hunting trip,
claimant argues that he took the trip in "good faith reliance on an
official authorization against which the expenses had been incurred
before the mistake was discovered."   

     The GAO held that in the case of an employee who is re-
transferred to an old duty station, before expiration of the time
allowed for reimbursement of real estate expenses incident to the
original transfer, an agency's obligation to reimburse him for real
estate expenses is limited to the expenses already incurred and
those which could not be avoided.  Robert T. Celso, 64 Comp. Gen.
476 (1985); Warren L. Shipp, 59 Comp. Gen. 502 (1980).  Shipp
involved an employee who unsuccessfully claimed expenses of sale of
a residence at his former duty station where the employee contract-
ed to sell the residence after he had been notified that he was to
be re-transferred to that same duty station.  We have followed
Shipp's reasoning in refusing reimbursement to an employee who sold
his house after his re-transfer.  George S. Lu, GSBCA 13659-RELO,
97-1 BCA  28,797.  If an employee is transferred back to his
original duty station within three years, the Government will
reimburse the employee for allowable and reasonable expenses that
he already incurred, but will not pay additional real estate
expenses unless they cannot be avoided.  

     Citing various subjective factors, claimant maintains that his
old townhouse is not now suitable as a residence.  Claimant argues
that Shipp's rule of avoidance of unnecessary real-estate expenses
upon re-transfer is limited by Celso to an employee's "suitable"
residence.  

     Claimant misreads Celso.  In Celso, the employee was trans-
ferred in 1981 to Corpus Christi, Texas.  Upon his transfer, the
employee purchased a house and sought reimbursement of $1,954.50
for that purchase.  The employee, however, had worked previously in
Corpus Christi, and, in 1967, had purchased a townhouse there which
he had rented since 1969.  Based on Shipp, the agency disallowed
the reimbursement request since the employee already owned a
house--the one rented in 1969--in Corpus Christi.  GAO held that
Shipp was based on the fact that the period between an employee's
original transfer from a particular duty station and the later
transfer back to that duty station was relatively brief.  It was
reasonable to assume that upon transfer back, the property remained
a suitable residence for the employee.  Thus Shipp did not apply,
if the employee was notified of his re-transfer to the former duty
station after the time had expired for completion of real estate
transactions which qualified for reimbursement incident to the
original transfer.  Otherwise, held the GAO, the time limitation
provides the "basis for an objective standard" in determining the
application of the rule.  

     Here, unlike Celso, claimant's transfer to his old duty
station was within the maximum three-year (two years plus one year
extension) limitation in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) for
claiming expenses incident to the original transfer.  41 CFR 302-
6.1(e) (1992).  There is no justification for considering that
claimant's old townhouse was unsuitable; since renters lived there,
the house was clearly habitable.  Through exercise of the lease's
cancellation clause, claimant could have regained possession of his
townhouse upon his re-transfer to Miami. 

     For the reasons stated above, claimant's expenses for both the
house-hunting trip and the purchase of his new house were unneces
sary and avoidable.  While claimant's desire for a new and better
residence is understandable, under these circumstances, the
Government is not required by statute or regulation to pay for the
expenses associated with fulfilling that desire.  As for the house-
hunting trip, claimant maintained that he relied on the erroneous
travel authorization, but as the GAO noted, that authorization was
quickly withdrawn.  



                              ________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge