_________________________

                             January 31, 1997
                         _________________________


                             GSBCA 13659-RELO


                       In the Matter of GEORGE S. LU


     George S. Lu, Albuquerque, NM, Claimant.

     William E. Allen, Chief, Finance and Accounting Liason Office,
Directorate of Support Services, Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense.

DeGRAFF, Board Judge.

     George S. Lu is a civilian employee of the Department of the
Air Force (Air Force).  On January 6, 1992, he made a permanent
change of station from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Las Vegas,
Nevada.  Mr. Lu's travel authorization provided that the Air Force
would reimburse him for certain expenses he incurred in selling his
residence in Albuquerque, so long as the sale occurred within two
years after he reported for duty in Las Vegas.  When Mr. Lu moved
to Las Vegas, his family remained in the residence in Albuquerque. 

     On May 19, 1993, Mr. Lu made another permanent change of
station and moved from Las Vegas back to Albuquerque.  On
August 24, 1993, Mr. Lu entered into a contract for the sale of his
residence in Albuquerque and he closed the sale on September 30,
1993.  

     On October 6, 1993, Mr. Lu applied for reimbursement of
$12,683.85 in expenses he incurred in selling his residence in
Albuquerque.  The Air Force denied Mr. Lu's claim, and Mr. Lu asked
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the claim.

                                Discussion

     When an employee transfers from one official station to
another for permanent duty, the agency is authorized to reimburse
the employee for expenses of the sale of the residence of the
employee "at the old station . . . required to be paid" by the
employee.  5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4)(A) (1994).  The Federal Travel
Regulation implements this statute, and the Joint Travel
Regulations supplement the Federal Travel Regulation for civilian
Department of Defense employees.  

     Neither the statute nor the regulations explain whether an
employee can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with
the sale of a residence at the old duty station, if the employee
makes a permanent change of station back to the old duty station
and subsequently enters into a contract to sell the residence. 
Clearly, reimbursing such an employee is not in keeping with the
purpose of the statute, which is "to help pay the cost of moving to
the new place of employment."  The statute is designed to authorize
payment of expenses "incident to transfer from the old to the new
station" so that "employees will not have to incur financial losses
when transferred at the request of the Government."  S. Rep. No.
1357, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-4 (1966), reprinted in 1966
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2565-67.  An employee who enters into a contract to
sell his residence at his old duty station after he returns to that
duty station is not incurring costs due to moving from the old duty
station to a new place of employment, and his real estate
transaction costs are not incident to a transfer to a new duty
station.  Therefore, to reimburse such an employee would not be
consistent with the purpose of the statute.  

     Faced with claims presenting this same issue, GAO decided
that, if an employee was notified within the two-year period
allowed for completing residence transactions that he was being
transferred back to his former duty station, the agency's
obligation to reimburse him for real estate expenses was limited to
the expenses already incurred and those which could not be avoided. 
Howard L. Peterson, 69 Comp. Gen. 242 (1990);  Gerald L. Rooney,
B-235336 (Oct. 26, 1989); Robert T. Celso, 64 Comp. Gen. 476
(1985); Warren L. Shipp, 59 Comp. Gen. 502 (1980).  These decisions
are in keeping with the purpose of the statute and set out a
workable rule, which we apply here.

     Mr. Lu's sale of his residence in Albuquerque was not incident
to his transfer to Las Vegas, and the costs he incurred when he
sold that residence were not costs of moving to his new duty
station in Las Vegas.  Mr. Lu did not incur the expenses for which
he seeks reimbursement until after he returned to Albuquerque, and
he could have avoided incurring those expenses if he had not
contracted to sell his Albuquerque residence after he returned to
his duty station there.  Therefore, Mr. Lu is not entitled to the
reimbursement he seeks.




                                   ______________________________
                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF
                                   Board Judge