Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________________________ December 17, 1999 ________________________________ GSBCA 14943-RELO In the Matter of DENNIS A. EDWARDS Dennis A. Edwards, Houston, TX, Claimant. Kenya M. Gregory, Assistant Counsel, Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, Dennis A. Edwards, a civilian traffic manager with the Defense Energy Office (DEO), Department of Defense (DOD), seeks reimbursement of expenses associated with the sale of his residence which he claims were incurred in conjunction with his permanent change of station (PCS) from St. Louis, Missouri, to Houston, Texas. Specifically, claimant seeks reimbursement for broker s fees for the sale of his principal residence at the old duty station. Because claimant sold his residence before his transfer occurred, he rented an apartment at the old duty station while awaiting his transfer; he also seeks the cost of packing his household goods (HHG) and moving his HHG into this temporary rental unit. We uphold the agency's denial of the claim. Background In early May 1998, claimant discussed with management officials at the agency the possibility of his being transferred from St. Louis to Houston as a part of an ongoing reorganization. On May 8, 1998, before any final decision had been made with regard to claimant s transfer, claimant listed his mobile home for sale. In June 1998, claimant again discussed his potential transfer with management officials but learned that there were some undecided elements with the potential to delay the process. On July 2, 1998, a management official submitted a Standard Form 52 entitled "Request for Personnel Action," requesting claimant s reassignment to Houston with an effective date of September 1, 1998. Claimant, assuming that his transfer was more imminent, accepted the first offer he received on his mobile home in early July 1998. No travel orders or authorization had been issued to claimant at this time. On July 16, 1998, the Commander of the St. Louis DEO informed claimant that his permanent change of duty station orders would be delayed indefinitely due to agency reorganization problems. Nonetheless, claimant sold the mobile home on July 20, 1998. Claimant was unable to find a suitable short-term apartment rental in St. Louis while awaiting his transfer, and, on July 18, 1998, he entered into a one-year lease. On July 20, 1998, claimant had his HHG moved into temporary storage in St. Louis. On October 2, 1998, claimant s PCS orders were issued, authorizing his move to Houston, and on October 25, 1998, claimant s transfer from St. Louis to Houston became effective. Claimant therefore terminated the lease, incurring $1381.60 in expenses for the early termination. On October 26-27, 1998, claimant moved his HHG from temporary storage at his old duty station to his new duty station, incurring $2218.41 in expenses. Claimant was reimbursed $1381.60 for the cost of the early lease termination and $2218.41 for the storage and movement of his HHG from St. Louis to Houston, as well as real estate and other expenses incurred at the new duty station. Claimant seeks $4211.92 -- $3217 for expenses incurred in selling his mobile home prior to receiving travel orders, packing expenses of $454.92 for moving his HHG from his home to an apartment at his old duty station, and moving expenses of $540 for the move from his mobile home to the apartment. Discussion Statute provides that an employee transferred in the interest of the Government is eligible for reimbursement of real estate expenses incurred for a permanent change of duty station. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(a)(4) (Supp. III 1997). This statutory authority has been implemented by Chapter 302, Part 6 of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR 302-6 (1998), as well as the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which are applicable to civilian employees of DOD. FTR 302-1.3(c) 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." 41 CFR 302-1.3(c). As this Board recognized, the policy embodied in this regulation "makes perfect sense." Rosemary H. Sellers, GSBCA 13654-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,714. The Board explained: "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." 97-1 BCA at 143,338. Further, FTR 302-6.1, which outlines conditions and requirements under which residential real estate expenses may be paid, provides that the type of transfer covered is "a permanent change of station authorized or approved." 41 CFR 302-6.1. In the instant case, at the time claimant incurred real estate transactions expenses for the sale of his mobile home, i.e., at the time of closing, he already knew that his transfer had been indefinitely delayed, and his PCS had not yet been authorized or approved in writing. Claimant contends that the agency had evidenced clear administrative intent to transfer him at the time he sold his primary residence. Claimant relies on JTR C14000-D.1, which provides: An employee may be reimbursed for real estate expenses incurred before, and in anticipation of, a transfer if a clearly evident administrative intent exists, at the time the expenses are incurred, to transfer the employee. The record in the instant case demonstrates that the agency had not manifested a "clearly evident administrative intent" to transfer claimant. Claimant relies solely on two discussions with management officials and the issuance of a standard personnel form entitled "Request for Transfer." These circumstances do not evince a clear intent to transfer claimant. See, e.g., Kenneth E. James, B-256002 (June 2, 1994), aff'd on reconsideration, B-256002 (July 2, 1996) (reimbursement denied because mere discussions of the possibility of transfer after new position had been established do not demonstrate clear administrative intention to transfer claimant); Benjamin M. Johnson, B-229390 (Sept. 14, 1988) (real estate sales expenses denied where expenses were incurred at the time there was only an indefinite proposal to transfer employee and transfer was contingent on uncertain future events); John Debo, B-219854 (Mar. 12, 1986) (no clear administrative intent to transfer employee when claimant was selected to participate in agency training program for employee development not immediate reassignment). Claimant also relies on the Comptroller General's decision in Terry W. Gravatt, B-261836 (Nov. 13, 1995). Gravatt is distinguishable from this case. There, GAO concluded the agency had demonstrated a clear administrative intent to transfer an employee when the employee had been informed that the base at which he worked would likely be closed and that he would be assisted in finding other employment; the employee in Gravatt was actually placed in another position within a few weeks. GAO stated: "Given the closeness in time of the announcement of the base closure list, Mr. Gravatt's decision to list his residence with a realtor and the agency's subsequent transfer of Mr. Gravatt to another base, we agree . . . that the sale of Mr. Gravatt's residence was incident to his transfer." This is neither a base closure situation nor a situation in which the employee was transferred within a few weeks after incurring the residential sales expenses. Rather, claimant's transfer, having been indefinitely delayed, had been placed on hold before written orders had ever been issued. The sale of claimant's residence cannot therefore be considered to have been incident to his transfer. Moreover, the agency correctly notes that claimant may not be reimbursed for both the expense of a lease termination and a residence sale at the old duty station. 41 CFR 302-6.1. Here, the agency reimbursed claimant for the lease termination. Nor is claimant entitled to reimbursement for packing and moving his HHG between the mobile home and apartment. Again, claimant's PCS had not been officially authorized or approved at the time he incurred these expenses, and there was no clear administrative intent to transfer claimant at that time. Further, claimant has received $2218.41 for the movement and storage of his HHG incident to his transfer from his old duty station in St. Louis to his new duty station in Houston. As the Board recently explained in analogous circumstances, an employee may only be reimbursed for the movement and storage of his HHG to a single destination incident to a transfer, and excess costs resulting from shipments to alternate destinations are the responsibility of the employee. Kanwar H. Khan, GSBCA 14892-RELO (Aug. 31, 1999). 41 CFR 302-8(e). Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge