Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
 
 
                                                    
 
                           November 17, 1999
                                                    
 
 
                            GSBCA 15096-RELO
 
 
                In the Matter of RICHARD J. GAMBLE, SR.
 
 
        Richard J. Gamble, Sr., Evans, GA, Claimant.
 
        W.  H.  Sharpe, Director  of Human  Resources, Headquarters,
   United  States Army Signal  Center and Fort  Gordon, Fort Gordon,
   GA, appearing for Department of the Army.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        The  Department of the  Army transferred Richard  J. Gamble,
   Sr.,  a patient administration  clerk, from Bamberg,  Germany, to
   Fort Gordon, Georgia,  in October  1997.   The agency  authorized
   reimbursement of expenses Mr. Gamble might incur in  purchasing a
   residence in Georgia.  The employee did buy a house, and he asked
   the agency to  reimburse him for $10,158.95 in expenses allegedly
   attributable  to the  purchase --  $751.25 in  legal and  related
   costs, $68.46 for a mortgage title policy, and $9,339.24 in other
   incidental  expenses.   He  listed  in  the last  category  "tree
   removal, contract  expenses, porch,  rangetop, telephon[e]  line,
   blinds for  windows, downpayment  on fence."   The  Army properly
   denied this claim.
 
        Mr.  Gamble  believed,  in  submitting  the  claim,  that  a
   transferred employee  who purchases  a new  home is "entitled  to
   claim  real  estate   expenses  which  consist[]  of   a  certain
   percentage of  the amount [he  pays] for [his] new  house."  This
   belief  is misplaced.  Statute and regulation limit reimbursement
   for expenses incurred  in connection with the purchase  of a home
   at the  new duty station to an amount  "not [to] exceed 5 percent
   of  the  purchase price."  5 U.S.C.    5724a(d)(7)(B)  (Supp. III
   1997);  41  CFR 302-6.2(g)(2)  (1997);  JTR C14002-B.2  (Sept. 1,
   1997).  This percentage is a limitation, not an entitlement.  The
   employee   is  entitled   to  receive   reimbursement   only  for
   transaction expenses which (a) are  in a total amount within this
   limitation   and  (b)   meet  the   requirements  of   applicable
   regulations.   Those regulations  are, for  all federal  civilian
   employees, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 CFR pt. 302-6,
   and, for civilian employees of the Department of Defense like Mr.
   Gamble, the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), 2 JTR ch. 14.
 
 
        None of  the expenses  claimed by Mr.  Gamble qualifies  for
   reimbursement under these regulations.
 
        A  general precondition for  reimbursement of expenses  of a
   purchase  of real  estate  is  that the  costs  in question  must
   actually have been incurred and paid by  the employee or a member
   of his immediate  family in connection with the  transaction.  41
   CFR  302-6.1(f)(1); JTR C14000-F.1  (Sept. 1, 1995).   The amount
   requested  for "legal and related costs"  consists of three items
   listed on the settlement sheet for the employee's purchase of the
   house --  title examination,  loan application  fee, and  Georgia
   residential loan  fee.   All  of  these items  were paid  by  the
   seller,  not by Mr. Gamble or a member of his family.  The amount
   requested  for  "mortgage  title  policy"  is  not  shown  on the
   settlement sheet, and  Mr. Gamble has not provided  proof that he
   or a member  of his family paid this amount  (although the agency
   asked him to do so).  Similarly, Mr. Gamble has not shown that he
   or his  family paid any  "contract expenses" (an item  within his
   "incidental  expenses").  Because  there is no  evidence that the
   employee or any  member of his immediate family  incurred or paid
   any of these costs, the claim for them was correctly denied.
 
        The  items listed as  "incidental expenses" are,  except for
   the unexplained "contract expenses," capital expenditures, rather
   than transaction expenses.  In other words, by spending money for
   removal  of  trees, construction  of  a porch,  and  purchase and
   installation of a rangetop, telephone lines, window blinds, and a
   fence, Mr. Gamble  was adding to the  value of his property,  not
   paying for the  costs of transferring  ownership of the  property
   from the seller  to himself.  The regulations  do not provide for
   the Government to  assume any of the  costs of adding value  to a
   transferred     employee's      property.[foot #] 1           JTR
   C9001(12) (June 1, 1995).
 
        Mr. Gamble is concerned that the Army may have erred  by not
   taking into consideration the fact that the home he purchased was
   newly constructed.  This fact has no bearing on any of  the above
   analysis,  which applies equally  to previously occupied  and new
   homes.
 
        The claim is denied.
 
                                                                    
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS ---------
 
        [foot #] 1 With specific  regard to  the  window blinds,  we
   note  that  under  the  regulations,   a  miscellaneous  expenses
   allowance available to  transferred employees may cover  fees for
   cutting and fitting window coverings  moved from one residence to
   another,  but  may  not  cover  costs  of newly  acquired  window
   coverings.  41 CFR 302-3.1(b)(2), (c)(5); JTR C9000(2), C9001(14)
   (June 1, 1995).
 
                   ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS -----------
 
 
 
                                 _________________________
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge