________________________________________

                             January 23, 1997
                 ________________________________________


                             GSBCA 13727-RELO


                    In the Matter of MALCOLM L. JOWERS


     Malcolm L. Jowers, Asheville, NC, Claimant.

     James K. Turner, Certifying Officer, Department of Agricul-
ture, Washington DC, appearing for the Department of Agriculture.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Mr. Malcolm L. Jowers is a criminal investigator with the
United States Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, who claims 
entitlement to reimbursement expenses for the sale of his house in
Dahlonega, Georgia, upon relocation of his family from Dahlonega to
Asheville, North Carolina.  The agency denied his request because
he had not commuted daily between his residence in Dahlonega and
his old duty station, Cleveland, Tennessee.  Mr. Jowers filed a
claim with the General Accounting Office seeking reimbursement. 
 We conclude that the agency correctly denied the claim.

     In August 1987, Mr. Jowers was transferred from Dahlonega to
Cleveland, but decided to keep his house in Dahlonega for family
reasons.  Mr. Jowers did not wish to disrupt the schooling of his
daughters, one of whom was the putative valedictorian of her high-
school class, and who would have been forced, by a family move to
Cleveland, to change high-schools in her junior year.  The Jowers
family, therefore, continued to reside in Dahlonega.  During his
tour of duty at Cleveland, Mr. Jowers also rented an apartment near
his duty station, and returned to his home in Dahlonega every
weekend and for the holidays.  During his stay in Cleveland, Mr.
Jowers obtained a Tennessee driver's license, registered to vote in
Tennessee, registered one of his four vehicles in Tennessee, and
paid Tennessee payroll taxes.  

     In January 1995, Mr. Jowers was transferred from Cleveland to
Asheville.  He sought reimbursement from the agency for the
expenses of selling his home in Dahlonega.  The agency denied the
request.  The agency notes that the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR), at 41 CFR, defines the term "residence" as the "residence or
other quarters from which the employee regularly commutes to and
from work."  The agency argues that consistent with GAO precedent,
where an employee returns to a residence only on weekends, "such a
residence does not constitute a residence from which the employee
regularly commutes to and from work."  

     Statute provides that transferred federal employees may be
reimbursed for "expenses of the sale of the residence . . . of the
employee at the old station and purchase of a home at the new
official station required to be paid by him when the old and new
official stations are located within the United States."  5 U.S.C.
 5724a (1994).  

     Implementing that provision, the FTR says that the Government
shall "reimburse an employee for expenses required to be paid by
him/her in connection with the sale of one residence at his/her old
official station."  41 CFR 302-6.1 (1994).  The FTR also defines
the term "official station":

     With respect to entitlement under this chapter relating
     to the residence and the household goods and personal
     effects of an employee, official station or post of duty
     also means the residence or other quarters from which the
     employee regularly commutes to and from work.  However,
     where the official station or post of duty is in a remote
     area where adequate family housing is not available
     within reasonable daily commuting distance, residence
     includes the dwelling where the family of the employee
     resides or will reside, but only if such residence
     reasonably relates to the official station as determined
     by an appropriate administrative official.

41 CFR 302-1.4(k)(1994).  

     The GAO consistently held that for reimbursement for expenses
of the purchase or sale of a residence, the requirement that the
employee regularly commute from the residence in question contem-
plates commuting on a daily basis.  Johnny W. Reising, B-238086
(Jun. 8, 1990); Donald R. Stacy, 67 Comp. Gen. 395 (1988),  Irving
R. Warnasch, B-193885 (Jun. 8, 1979).  The GAO also held that where
an employee maintains, and commutes from, living accommodations in
the near proximity of his duty station on a daily basis and only
travels on weekends and holidays to a residence where his family
lives, the weekend commute does not satisfy the FTR's requirement
of regular commuting.  Donald R. Stacy, William T. Cook, B-217518
(Jul. 23, 1985).  The notion that for purposes of entitlement to
expense reimbursement, the regular commute must be daily is fully
supportable when one considers the sentence of the regulation
immediately following the FTR's definition of official station. 
That sentence defines residence as where the family of the employee
resides or will reside, when the employee moves to a remote area
and adequate family housing is not available within reasonable
daily commuting distance.  Also, in this case, Mr. Jowers obtained
a Tennessee driver's license, voted in Tennessee and paid payroll
taxes in Tennessee.  Cleveland, Tennessee, therefore, was Mr.
Jowers's primary residence.       

                              
                              _________________________
                              ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                              Board Judge