November 8, 1996 GSBCA 13670-RELO In the Matter of ROBRT L. PALMER, JR. Robrt L. Palmer, Jr., Alexandria, VA, Claimant. Barbara A. Garlick, Travel Assistant, OSA, Headquarters Services, Washington, Department of the Army, appearing for Department of the Army. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). We deny a claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred by a civilian employee of the Department of the Army, Robrt L. Palmer, Jr., in purchasing a home more than three years after he was relocated from one duty station to another. On August 19, 1992, the Army transferred Mr. Palmer from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Washington, D.C. The orders stated that Mr. Palmer would report for duty at his new station on or about September 21, 1992. The orders did not authorize real estate expenses. On November 17, 1993, at Mr. Palmer's request, the orders were amended to include authorization for payment of real estate expenses. According to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-6.1(e), expenses incurred in connection with residence transactions of relocated federal civilian employees may generally be reimbursed only where the settlement date of such a transaction is not later than two years after the date that the employee reported for duty at the new official station. The two-year limitation may be extended by the agency for an additional period of time not to exceed one year. Mr. Palmer knew these rules, having read paragraph C14000.B of volume 2 of the Joint Travel Regulations, the Department of Defense's internal regulations which implement the FTR. He recognized that the authorization he had been granted would expire on or about September 21, 1994. On September 26, 1994, he requested that the Army approve a one-year extension for him. He stated in support of this request, "I am currently in the process of purchasing a home in the Northern Virginia area. . . . I wish to extend my realestate [sic] privileges for the next fiscal [year?], thus allowing me to conclude the paperwork and procedures to finalize my realestate [sic] venture." The record does not contain any evidence that this request was granted. When Mr. Palmer was transferred from Fort Monmouth to Washington, he was single. In 1995, in claiming reimbursement of settlement expenses he had incurred in purchasing a house in Alexandria, Virginia, Mr. Palmer stated that he and his new wife had begun "our house hunting ventures" in September, 1994. On August 28, 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Palmer contracted to purchase the house in Alexandria, with settlement to occur on September 20, 1995. Unexpected medical problems caused Mr. Palmer to reschedule the settlement for September 27. Mr. Palmer claimed $1,720.88 in settlement expenses incurred in connection with this purchase. The Army properly rejected his claim. Under the FTR, approval of a third year within which reimbursement of residence transaction expenses may be available "shall be based on a determination that extenuating circumstances, acceptable to the agency concerned, have prevented the employee from completing the sale and purchase or lease termination transactions in the initial time frame and that the residence transactions are reasonably related to the transfer of official station." 41 CFR 302-6(e)(2)(iii) (1995). The Army acted in accordance with this rule in not granting Mr. Palmer's request for an extension of time in which to claim such reimbursement. Mr. Palmer has shown no extenuating circumstances which might have prevented him from completing his home purchase by September 21, 1994. He has produced no evidence that, as he suggested, he was in the process of purchasing a home at that time and needed only to finish the paperwork for such a purchase. To the contrary, he has admitted that he did not even begin to look for a house until approximately that date. Further, the purchase appears to have been related to the desire of newlyweds to buy a home for themselves, not to the transfer of Mr. Palmer from Fort Monmouth to Washington. Mr. Palmer's claim is predicated on the theory that because his illness prevented settlement on September 20, 1995, a grace period of six days should be added to the three years within which real estate transaction expenses may be reimbursable. We need not reach this proposition, since we have concluded that the relevant period of time for reimbursement expired two years after the claimant's permanent change of station. Whether a time extension should have been approved was dependent on events which occurred prior to the expiration of that period. The condition of Mr. Palmer's health a year later is irrelevant to our determination. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge