________________

                             November 6, 1997
                             ________________


                             GSBCA 13815-RELO


                     In the Matter of PAUL W. JOHNSON


     Paul W. Johnson, Huntsville, AL, Claimant.

     John H. Beall, Deputy Chief Financial Officer for Finance,
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, appearing for
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     Claimant in this case, Paul W. Johnson, is an employee of
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  He
asks that we review NASA's ruling on his requests for various
relocation costs said to have been incurred in conjunction with
his transfer back to the United States from a NASA duty station
in Moscow, Russia.  We dismiss a portion of the claim and grant
in part the remaining portion of it.

                                Background

     On July 27, 1994, claimant was authorized a permanent change
of station move from Huntsville, Alabama to NASA's Space Station
Program in Moscow, Russia.  Mr. Johnson states that on March 15,
1995, shortly before his scheduled departure from Moscow for his
wedding in the United States, he was told for the first time that
the agency had decided to transfer him to a new permanent work
station in the United States.  On March 17, 1995, Mr. Johnson was
married in Huntsville, Alabama.  He contends that shortly
thereafter, on March 19, he telephoned his NASA office in Moscow
and received confirmation of his transfer.  

     The record is unclear concerning the reason for the
apparently abrupt transfer of Mr. Johnson.  The travel orders in
the agency report for this case indicate that much of the
paperwork concerning the transfer was not completed until after
Mr. Johnson's arrival in Huntsville on March 16.  Both his
service agreement and official travel orders bear the date of
March 21.  The travel orders state that Mr. Johnson was on
approved leave in Huntsville when informed that a permanent
change of station (PCS) to Huntsville had been authorized.  They
further state that, for the convenience of the Government, the
employee is not to return to his old duty station.  The orders
authorize shipment of household goods and temporary quarters for
sixty days.

     Mr. Johnson states he was not given a copy of his travel
orders until they were sent to him by telefacsimile (faxed) on
May 31, 1995.  Nevertheless, an official from the NASA Human
Resources Department assigned to assist Mr. Johnson in his
transfer has provided for the record an affidavit in which she
states that she had several conversations with him upon his
return from Moscow concerning his entitlements in conjunction
with his PCS move.  She states that she advised him that he could
be reimbursed for his airfare from Moscow as long as he could
present his used ticket as proof of his costs.  She also states
that he was told that  temporary quarters could be authorized for
sixty days but that to get reimbursement he would have to present
receipts for lodging, laundry expenses, and food or other items
costing more than $25.  

     In his comments on the agency's report, Mr. Johnson writes
that he informed this same NASA official that before he and his
wife moved into a hotel he first needed to see his travel orders. 
He states that previous experience with this individual and her
office had led him to conclude that her advice could not be
trusted.  Rather than proceed on this individual's oral
representations and risk not being reimbursed for lodging
expenses at a hotel, Mr. Johnson and his wife, on March 20, took
temporary lodging at the house owned by him and in which his wife
had been residing while he was in Moscow.  Mr. Johnson, on the
assumption that his new wife would be returning with him to
Moscow, had previously arranged to lease this house to a new
tenant beginning March 31.  On his return, however, he was
apparently able to change this arrangement.  On March 22, he
entered a new lease which required him to make the house
available to the new tenant commencing May 1.  
     
     By letter dated March 29, the tenant of another house in
Huntsville, also owned by Mr. Johnson, served notice that, under
the lease's cancellation provision, he planned to cancel his
present lease and vacate no later than April 30.  The building in
question was a former duplex.  On April 17, Mr. Johnson and his
wife left the house which they had agreed to lease to a new
tenant beginning May 1 and took possession instead of two
bedrooms and one half-bath on the first level of the other house
owned by Mr. Johnson, which was to be vacated no later than April
30.  He then proceeded to award a contract for the addition of a
kitchen to this small "apartment" thus making the house once more
a duplex residence.  The remodeling work was completed in early
summer of 1995.  Mr. Johnson and his wife have continued to
live in this section of the duplex.  On November 21, 1995, they
successfully leased the other unit of the duplex.

     There is some disagreement between the claimant and NASA
officials on when Mr. Johnson first advised that he was using his
own houses as temporary quarters.  The official in the NASA Human
Resources Department, who was attempting to advise him after his
return to Huntsville, has stated in her affidavit that, when she
learned he was residing on his own property, she "cautioned" Mr.
Johnson that one's own residence did not meet the definition of
temporary quarters because no lodging expense is incurred for
staying in one's own residence.  She has further stated that she
discussed this matter with the chief of the center's travel
office  and that this individual "echoed" her concern over the
possibility of reimbursing a claimant in this type of situation. 
Mr. Johnson denies that he was ever "cautioned" in this regard,
but he does admit that the NASA Human Resources Department
official with whom he spoke indicated "she did not have the
'authorization' to confirm payment and that someone above her
would have to say it was OK."  

     One factor relied on by Mr. Johnson in claiming that he was
in temporary quarters during the period following his return from
Moscow on March 16 is the apparent uncertainty of just where he
would be working.  The record confirms that Mr. Johnson, while
working in Huntsville prior to his transfer to NASA's liaison
office in Moscow, was associated with the Johnson Space Center
(JSC) in Houston, Texas.  It was the JSC Human Resources
Department which provided support to him for his transfer to
Moscow and likewise for his return to Huntsville.  On return from
Moscow, Mr. Johnson was detailed to a JSC residence office at the
Boeing Company plant at Huntsville.  Mr. Johnson states that when
he returned to Huntsville, an official at the JSC Human Resources
Department advised him not to make any arrangements to work at
NASA's principal center at Huntsville, namely, the Marshall Space
Flight Center (MSFC), because he was to be assigned to another
NASA center once matters were worked out.  According to Mr.
Johnson, on May 8, this same official advised him by telephone
that he could proceed to find an assignment at MSFC if he wished. 
Mr. Johnson quickly found a position and began working at MSFC on
May 15, 1995.  He contends that he did not begin to search
seriously for permanent quarters in the Huntsville area until
after he was advised that he could remain at MSFC.  Mr. Johnson
states that in late May and again in June he made a bid on a
possible home.  

     The agency report for this case states that, although Mr.
Johnson requested an extension of the original temporary quarters
authorization of sixty days, it was not granted.  In an affidavit
provided for the record, an official of the NASA Payroll, Labor,
and Travel Accounting Branch assisting Mr. Johnson has declared
that she discussed his request with him.  She has further stated
that she explained to Mr. Johnson that the Human Resources
Department would take no action on his request until the voucher
for his first sixty days of temporary quarters was finalized. 
Mr. Johnson does not challenge these statements.  

     On June 26, 1995, Mr. Johnson submitted a claim for
temporary quarters entitlements, for reimbursement of the travel
expenses for his return from Moscow, and for loss of and damages
to his personal effects shipped back to him from his apartment in
Moscow.  The claim sought temporary quarters subsistence expenses
(TQSE) for a full 120 days through July 17, 1995.  The
itemization sheets submitted in support of Mr. Johnson's TQSE
claim show no daily cost for lodging or meals but simply a daily
total for himself and one dependent.  This total for the first
thirty days is $100 per day.  For the remaining ninety days the
total is reduced to $82.50 per day. 

     Mr. Johnson states that, upon submitting his claim, he was
informed by the Human Resources Department that the supporting
itemization sheets for his TQSE claim had been incorrectly filled
out.  By letter dated August 29, 1995, Mr. Johnson submitted
revised itemization sheets, along with receipts for his airline
ticket and for some meals, food, and laundry expenses.  In
addition, he furnished a specific list of household items damaged
or lost during shipment from Moscow.  The revised claim totaled
$15,785.20.  From this amount claimant subtracted $6785.  This
deduction represents an amount advanced to him on the occasion of
his leaving for Moscow the year before.  NASA, as of May 9, 1995,
had been seeking a return of the original advance given to him
for this trip after learning that an itemized voucher for travel
and relocation expenses filed by Mr. Johnson after arrival in
Moscow had already been paid to him.   Given Mr. Johnson's
willingness to offset this agency claim against his own
relocation claim, we conclude that the agency's claim is not in
dispute.  

     Mr. Johnson's revised itemization sheets provided
considerably more detail than the sheets originally submitted. 
For himself and his dependent, he listed a total lodging cost of
$58 per day.  For breakfast he claimed a total of $10 per day. 
For lunch he claimed a total of $15 per day.  With a limited
number of exceptions, he claimed a total of $24 for dinner each
day.  The revised itemization list also included eight claims for
laundry and dry cleaning.  

     In his cover letter of August 29, 1995, with which he
submitted a revised and supplemented claim, Mr. Johnson explained
that the claim of $58 per day for lodging was an estimate.  He
stated that amount was the "going rate" for a hotel in Huntsville
where JSC personnel stay while on temporary duty (TDY) from
Houston.  He likewise explained that the charges noted for the
cost of meals were also estimated and below the $25 level for
which a receipt would be required.  Mr. Johnson summarized his
claim as follows: 

          Temporary Quarters:
               1st 30 Days      $  3418.97
               2nd 30 Days         3338.24
               3rd 30 Days         3247.85
               4th 30 Days         3210.00
          Travel Expenses            95.00
          Miscellaneous Expenses    700.00
          Airline Ticket           1338.81
          Damages/Missing           436.33     
          TOTAL:                $15,785.20
          Current due JSC:       -6,785.00   
          TOTAL DUE:              9,000.20

     After review of Mr. Johnson's revised claim, NASA, by letter
dated May 22, 1996, advised him that it was allowing a total of
$2,070.81 of his claim.  The amounts allowed and disallowed were
stated as follows: 

Description                               Claimed      Allowed 
En Route Travel from Moscow to Huntsville 1,433.81     1,370.81
Miscellaneous Allowance                     700.00       700.00
Temporary Quarters                       13,215.06         0.00
Damages During Shipping                     436.33         0.00
TOTAL                                   $15,785.20    $2,070.81

     The agency further advised Mr. Johnson that it had allowed
per diem for one day of air travel but in doing so had omitted
from the allowance the component normally applied for lodging. 
The claim for damages was disallowed on the ground that the first
avenue for reimbursement for damages of this nature is with the
vendor who performed the services.  Finally, TQSE was disallowed
in its entirety on the ground that the amounts sought did not
represent actual expenses but rather estimates.  The agency's
letter also reminded Mr. Johnson that the advance for his trip to
Moscow was still outstanding but would now be reduced to
$4,739.30 to reflect the amounts found due to him on this
relocation claim.  

     By letter dated August 19, 1996, Mr. Johnson appealed to
this Board the agency's ruling on his claim. 


                                Discussion

     A basic issue in this case to be resolved at the outset is
whether Mr. Johnson and his wife can be considered to have been
living in temporary quarters during the period for which it was
authorized.  The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) explains:

     Generally, the term temporary quarters refers to
     lodging obtained from private or commercial sources for
     the purpose of temporary occupancy after vacating the
     residence occupied when the transfer was authorized.

41 CFR 302-5.2(c) (1995)(FTR 302-5.2(c)).  The facts in this case
indicate that while on leave in Huntsville, Alabama, Mr. Johnson
was advised that he was being transferred back to that city from
Moscow.  He was also advised that temporary quarters were
authorized for sixty days.  Based on the record before us, we
find that the quarters he and his wife occupied during the sixty
days in question were, in fact, temporary quarters.  We are not
particularly troubled by the fact that the houses used were
privately owned by Mr. Johnson himself.  While this fact may have
an effect upon the amount of TQSE to which he is entitled, we do
not see it as necessarily negating the fact that he and his wife
were in temporary quarters. 

     The FTR indicates that the determination of whether an
employee is in temporary or permanent quarters should turn on
such factors as the duration of any lease the employee enters,
the movement of household effects into the quarters, the type of
quarters, the expressions of intent, the attempts to secure a
permanent dwelling and the length of time the employee occupies
the quarters.  FTR 302-5.2(c).  NASA contends that, based upon
considerations such as these, it reasonably concluded that Mr.
Johnson and his wife were not in temporary quarters in either of
the two residence occupied by them.  We disagree.  From the
record of this case it is clear that the situation Mr. Johnson
found himself in when he moved into the residence previously
occupied by his wife prior to their marriage was far from a
stable one.  The house had previously been scheduled for leasing. 
Within days of his moving into this house, Mr. Johnson arranged
for a change in the lease to provide for possession commencing
May 1.  It may well be that, as the agency points out, the
Johnsons had their household goods delivered to this house. 
Nevertheless, it is equally clear that they were obliged to leave
it prior to May 1.  For this reason we conclude that it was
unreasonable on the part of the agency to consider the Johnsons
to be in permanent quarters prior to that date.    

     The situation with the second location is similar.  Mr.
Johnson contends that he was advised by the JSC Human Resources
Department that he was to be assigned to another NASA center once
matters were worked out.  The agency does not deny this fact. 
Although his travel orders indicate Huntsville as his new duty
station, Mr. Johnson states, without contradiction, that he did
not receive a copy of these orders until May 31.  This lack of
certainty as to whether he would remain at Huntsville lends
considerable support to the conclusion that, at least until mid-
May when, with the permission of the JSC Human Resources
Department, he sought and secured a position at MSFC, the two-
room apartment occupied by Mr. Johnson and his wife should
likewise be considered temporary quarters.  To conclude
otherwise, based upon/on the evidence before us, would be
unreasonable.  

  We recognize that, once the alterations of the duplex were
complete, the Johnsons did elect to remain in the modified 
two-room apartment as their permanent quarters.  Nevertheless, on
balance, given the circumstances at the time, we are satisfied
that the ultimate decision to remain in this apartment
indefinitely, thus rendering it their permanent quarters, was not
made by the Johnsons until sometime after the expiration of the
initial, authorized sixty day period for temporary quarters.  

     Although we find that Mr. Johnson was in temporary quarters
during the first sixty days following the issuance of his orders
on March 21, 1995, we do not find that he was entitled to an
extension of this authorization to 120 days.  The FTR provides:

     The administrative determination as to whether the
     occupancy of temporary quarters is necessary and the
     length of time for occupancy shall be made on an
     individual-case basis.  

FTR 302-5.1.  The determination as to whether the authorization
of temporary quarters should be extended beyond the first sixty
days is not automatic and is not made lightly.  Thomas H. Potts,
GSBCA 13700-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,938; Charles M. Floyd, GSBCA
13677, 97-1 BCA  28,937.  This determination is a matter left to
agency discretion and is not one which we will disturb unless we
find it to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Holly
Rowe, GSBCA 14037-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,934; Luis Flores, GSBCA
13977-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,928.

     In this case, the agency did not extend the initial sixty-
day period for temporary quarters.  Given the circumstances at
the time, we consider the decision not to extend to be a
reasonable one.  Mr. Johnson's position in Huntsville had become
clear by May 15, shortly before the expiration of the first sixty
day period of temporary quarters.  NASA officials, by this time,
knew that he was living in a residence which he himself owned. 
Whether this would qualify him for TQSE was still an open
question.  Mr. Johnson points out that the short notice of
transfer provided to him was in contravention of agency guidance. 
He apparently feels that this failure on the agency's part should
justify a longer period of authorized temporary quarters.  We are
not persuaded.  The agency's concerns were legitimate ones.  We
are not prepared to say that, under circumstances such as these,
a decision not to extend the authorized period constitutes an
abuse of an agency's discretion.     
     Having determined that Mr. Johnson and his wife were living
in temporary quarters during the sixty days of authorized
temporary  quarters and having determined that there is no basis
for overturning NASA's decision not to extend this period, we now
turn to the specific elements of Mr. Johnson's claim. 

     NASA is correct in refusing to pay Mr Johnson's estimated
costs for lodging during his authorized period of TQSE.  The FTR
provision concerning claims for temporary quarters reads:  

     Reimbursement shall be made only for actual subsistence
     expenses incurred provided these are incident to
     occupancy of temporary quarters and are reasonable in
     amount.  

FTR 302-5.4.  The critical term here is "actual."  If the expense
claimed has not been actually incurred, then the agency cannot
reimburse the claimant.  Estimated costs which bear no
discernible relationship to actual costs are not reimbursable. 
It is precisely because of this limitation that the
contemporaneous itemization of expenses is required when one has
been authorized TQSE.  In this regard, the FTR provides:  

     The actual expenses shall be itemized in a manner
     prescribed by the head of the agency which will permit
     at least a review of the amounts spent daily for (1)
     lodging, (2) meals, and (3) other allowable items of
     subsistence expenses.  Receipts shall be required at
     least for lodging and laundry and cleaning expenses
     (except when coin-operated facilities are used.)

FTR 302-5.4(b).

     The NASA Form 1500 addresses this requirement of the FTR. 
It provides for entries on a daily basis for lodging expenses,
for the  costs of three separate meals, and for laundry and dry
cleaning expenses.  

     In Mr. Johnson's case, the costs listed on this form for
lodging are nothing more than estimated hypothetical costs.  He
freely admits this fact.   NASA has, therefore, correctly denied
them.

     NASA argues that Mr. Johnson had no out-of-pocket lodging
expenses while residing in his own homes because the homes were
leased at the time.  Agency Report at 9.  This is not entirely
correct.  The lease on the home occupied from March 20 to April
16 did not go into effect until May 1.  The lease on the home
with the two-room apartment occupied from April 17 forward
expired on April 30.  It is reasonable to conclude, therefore,
that Mr. Johnson did encounter unreimbursed actual costs in
maintaining his quarters for forty-six of the sixty days of
authorized TQSE.  These costs would include expenses such as
financing, property tax, insurance and utilities.  If the
claimant can support with adequate documentation the calculation
of a per day total for such actual costs, he is entitled to
reimbursement for them.  Cf. Donald C. Smaltz, GSBCA 14328-TRAV
(Oct. 23, 1997)(similar calculation permitted for per diem
lodging allowance).   

     As for Mr. Johnson's claim for the costs of meals, we find a
problem similar to that encountered in his claim for lodging
expenses.  The claim, for the most part, is not for actual
expenses but rather for estimated costs.  The same regulatory
requirement that reimbursements be for actual costs applies here
as well.  The listing of itemized costs initially submitted by
Mr. Johnson in support of his original claim was composed of
estimates, pure and simple, for each day's total costs.  He
readily admits this and explains that, in preparing claims in the
past, he was instructed to use estimates.  If indeed he has been
so advised in the past, the advice was clearly incorrect.  

     With regard to the claim which is the subject of this
decision, however, Mr. Johnson was advised that the itemization
sheets he had submitted were unsatisfactory.  His revised sheets
submitted in August 1995 did provide additional detail regarding
lodging and individual meals but were still, for the most part,
nothing more than estimates.  The figures listed for all
breakfasts are the same for each day.  So likewise are the
amounts listed for  all lunches, and for most dinners.  These
figures obviously, on their face, are still nothing more than
estimates.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
estimates were properly denied by NASA.  An agency is not
obligated to pay a claimant any amount for meal expenses,
particularly when the claimant cannot establish that the expenses
were either actually or reasonably incurred.  Michael D. Fox,
GSBCA 13712-RELO (Aug. 15, 1997); Michael L. Morgan, GSBCA 13646-
RELO, 97-2 BCA  29,018; Luther R. Dixon, GSBCA 13694-RELO, 97-1
BCA  28,947.

     Notwithstanding Mr. Johnson's heavy reliance upon estimates
in preparing his revised itemization sheets, there is a limited
number of entries covering dinners and dry cleaning which he has 
supported with specific receipts.  These have been entered on his
revised itemization sheets.  For the sixty-day period of
authorized TQSE, there is a  total of $432.71 in documented
expenditures for dinners and a total of $120.50 in documented
expenditures for dry cleaning.  The agency, after examining these
receipts, contends that the costs covered do not qualify as TQSE
and were not incurred incident to the occupancy of temporary
quarters.  No objection, however, is raised to the reasonableness
of these costs.  We find the amounts in question to be
reasonable, when viewed as a whole, for the period in question. 
Since they are not estimates but rather documented actual costs,
they should be paid.  

     Mr. Johnson has asked that we review NASA's ruling on his
entire claim.  In addition to his claim for TQSE, which
constitutes the major portion of that claim, NASA has denied a
portion of the per diem he sought for the time spent returning
from Moscow to Huntsville.  The agency allowed one day for per
diem but deducted the component of the per diem normally applied
for lodging.  We find this appropriate since Mr. Johnson slept in
an airplane on that day.  We, therefore, affirm the agency's
decision on this portion of the claim.  

     NASA has also denied Mr. Johnson's claim of $436.33 in
damages to his household goods during shipment from Moscow.  This
Board has been delegated authority to settle claims by federal
civilian employees for relocation expenses incident to transfers
of official duty station.  This authority does not extend to
claims for loss and damage to household goods.  Settlement of
these is a matter within the authority of the head of the agency
in which the claimant was employed at the time of shipment. 
Edmund J. Wiatr, Jr., GSBCA 14130-RELO, 97-2 BCA  29,032;
Gretchen F. Ridgeway, GSBCA 14074-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,942;
Charles A. Miller, GSBCA 13859-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,865.  We,
therefore, dismiss this aspect of Mr. Johnson's claim and refer
it back to NASA for review at an appropriate level within the
agency.  

                                  Summary

     Mr. Johnson's claim for damages to his household goods is 
dismissed.  The agency's ruling on his per diem claim is
affirmed.  The agency's ruling on his claim for TQSE is likewise
affirmed with the exception of $432.71 sought for dinners and
$120.50 sought for laundry and dry cleaning.  These are to be
paid.  The agency should also pay actual lodging costs for forty-
six of the sixty days of authorized temporary quarters, but only
when and if claimant submits a reasonably documented claim for
them.    



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge