_____________________________________

                             October 31, 1996
                   _____________________________________


                             GSBCA 13654-RELO


                   In the Matter of ROSEMARY H. SELLERS


     Rosemary H. Sellers, Columbus, OH, Claimant.

     Douglas M. Battle, Chief, Travel Division, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for
Department of Defense.

PARKER, Board Judge.

     Rosemary Sellers (now Rosemary Stanley), an employee of the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), asked the U.S.
General Accounting Office to review her agency's refusal to
reimburse certain expenses incurred in connection with her transfer
to a new permanent duty station.  Specifically, Ms. Sellers'
request for reimbursement of the costs of terminating the lease of
an apartment at her old duty station was denied on the grounds that
those costs could have been avoided if Ms. Sellers had given timely
notice to her landlord.  Ms. Sellers argues that her decision to
wait until she received written travel orders was reasonable, and
that the notice to the landlord, given three days after receiving
written orders, was timely.  The Board determines that Ms.
Stanley's claim has merit and that Ms. Stanley is entitled to
reimbursement for the costs of terminating her lease incident to
her transfer.

     The facts regarding this case are as follows.  Ms. Sellers was
employed by DFAS at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.  She
lived in nearby Dayton.  On February 8, 1995, Ms. Sellers signed an
agreement to transfer to the Defense Logistics Agency in Columbus,
Ohio.  Her tentative date of arrival was scheduled for either March
12 or March 26.  At the time of this agreement, no formal orders
had been issued to Ms. Sellers.

     Ms. Sellers' travel orders were actually issued on February
27.  By March 17, however, Ms. Sellers had not received a copy of
the orders.  On that date, Ms. Sellers called her supervisor at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and informed him of the
difficulties she was having in getting a copy of her orders from
the personnel office.  Later that day, a copy of the orders was
faxed to Ms. Sellers.

     The next business day, on March 20, Ms. Sellers gave notice of
termination to her landlord.  She had the penalty costs for early
lease termination ($400.00) waived by confirming to the landlord
that her relocation was a government transfer, but the lease still
required Ms. Sellers to give a thirty-day termination notice, thus
requiring her to pay rent until April 19.

     On March 22, Ms. Sellers attended the Permanent Change of
Station (PCS) briefing which was required for her transfer and for
initiating the relocation of her household goods.  The Government
required a copy of the travel orders in order for Ms. Sellers to
attend the PCS briefing, and required three weeks notice after the
the PCS briefing to move the goods.

     On March 26, Ms. Sellers left Dayton and arrived in Columbus. 
Ms. Sellers' household goods were picked up by the movers on April
19 and delivered to her new residence on April 20.

                               Discussion
                                    
     The agency's reason for denying Ms. Sellers' claim -- that she
should have given notice to her landlord before receiving her
travel orders -- is wrong.  Section 302-1.3(c) of the Federal
Travel Regulation (FTR) provides:

          a written travel authorization shall be issued
          to the . . . employee before he/she reports to
          the . . . new official station.  The agency
          should advise the employee . . . not to incur
          relocation expenses in anticipation of a
          relocation until he/she has received written
          notification of such authorization.

This policy makes perfect sense.  If it were otherwise, and an
employee incurred costs in anticipation of relocation but the terms
of the actual authorization differed from those of the anticipated
one, or if the transfer was canceled before the employee received
written orders, either the Government or the employee, or both,
would lose money for no purpose.  Ms. Sellers should not be
penalized for waiting for written authorization before giving her
landlord notice that she would be terminating her lease.

     We note that in this case, by waiting to give notice to her
landlord, Ms. Sellers appears to have saved the Government money. 
Because of the lateness of Ms. Sellers' travel orders and the PCS
requirements, the soonest that the Government would have been able
to move her household goods was April 11 (three weeks after the
date of the PCS briefing on March 22).  If Ms. Sellers had done as
the agency argues she should have done -- provided notice to her
landlord in February -- the Government would have been obligated to
move and store her furniture from the end of the lease obligation
in March, until April 11.  This arrangement undoubtedly would have
cost the Government more than the rent at Ms. Sellers' old
apartment.

                                 Decision

     The claim is granted in part.  Ms. Sellers is entitled to
reimbursement in the amount of $475.92.




                                   __________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge