Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ September 8, 1999 ____________________ GSBCA 15064-RELO In the Matter of RONALD E. SWINT Ronald E. Swint, Delray Beach, FL, Claimant. Ronald F. Hicks, Deputy Administrator, Office Management, Food and Safety Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Agriculture. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Ronald E. Swint, an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), transferred from Texas to Florida. In connection with the transfer, USDA agreed to reimburse Mr. Swint for a house-hunting trip, which he made in April 1998. The agency also agreed to reimburse him for sixty days of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE). Mr. Swint reported for duty in Florida on May 10, 1998, and began occupying temporary quarters there. Mr. Swint's wife looked at houses during the day, and Mr. Swint accompanied her in the evenings and on weekends. On June 11, 1998, Mr. and Mrs. Swint made an offer to purchase a house. On June 12, 1998, Mr. Swint asked USDA to reimburse him for an added sixty days of TQSE. Mr. Swint stated that he needed the additional time in temporary quarters because it would take approximately seventy days to complete his purchase transaction. He explained that his sellers intended to purchase a house from someone who was building a house, and that he could not close on his purchase until his sellers' transaction was completed. Mr. Swint also stated that he needed the additional time so that his lender could process his loan request. USDA decided to deny Mr. Swint's request for an additional sixty days of TQSE reimbursement. USDA took into account the fact that Mr. Swint made a house-hunting trip to Florida the month before he moved, and was then in Florida for approximately one month before he made an offer to purchase a house. Mr. Swint did not provide USDA with any details about his search for a house and did not describe any problems or unique circumstances which prevented him from finding a suitable residence and obtaining a loan within the initial sixty-day TQSE period. USDA also noted that nothing beyond Mr. Swint's control occurred that extended the time he took to complete his purchase transaction, and he was aware when he offered to purchase his house that it would take some time to accommodate his seller and to obtain his loan. USDA says that it did not find that Mr. Swint had a compelling reason to continue to occupy his temporary quarters for more than sixty days. Mr. Swint asks us to review USDA's decision. The statute and the regulation that authorize agencies to reimburse employees for TQSE make it clear that the decision to grant more than sixty days of TQSE reimbursement is committed to the discretion of the agency, within certain rather broad boundaries. The statute provides that an agency may allow more than sixty days of TQSE reimbursement if it determines that there are "compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters." 5 U.S.C. 5724a(c)(2) (Supp. III 1997). The Federal Travel Regulation, which implements this statute, provides that a "compelling reason" is one that is beyond the control of the employee and acceptable to the agency. Examples of compelling reasons include delayed delivery of an employee's household goods due to strikes, weather, or similar events; unanticipated problems such as a delay in settlement; an inability to find housing that is adequate for the employee's family's needs; or sudden illness, injury, or death of the employee or an immediate family member. 41 CFR 302-5.105 (1998). We will not disturb USDA's decision because Mr. Swint has not established that the decision amounts to an abuse of discretion. In deciding whether to extend Mr. Swint's TQSE reimbursement period, USDA considered that Mr. Swint was afforded both a house-hunting trip and sixty days in temporary quarters to find a house. After taking the house-hunting trip and after using approximately one-half of his TQSE period, he made an offer to purchase a house, knowing that his purchase transaction could not close within the remainder of his TQSE period due to his sellers' circumstances and also due to the time that it would take to process his loan. USDA did not act either arbitrarily or capriciously when it determined that Mr. Swint's circumstances are different from the kind of unanticipated event that the Federal Travel Regulation says constitutes a compelling reason to continue to occupy temporary quarters. Because USDA permissibly exercised its discretion in deciding not to extend the TQSE period, we deny the claim. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge