______________

                              April 28, 1997
                              ______________


                             GSBCA 13987-TRAV


          In the Matter of LUIS R. SANDOVAL and JOSE LUIS TORRES


    Luis R. Sandoval, Hato Rey, PR, Claimant.

    Jose Luis Torres, Hato Rey, PR, Claimant.

    A. Thomas Park, Chief, Financial Accounting, Policy, and
Operations Division, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC, appearing for Department of Transportation.

VERGILIO, Board Judge.

    The agency seeks a determination regarding the actual place of
residence of two employees, Mr. Luis R. Sandoval and Mr. Jose Luis
Torres.  The determination affects the entitlement of each employee
to travel expenses and home leave.  5 U.S.C.  5728(a) (1994).  At
the time each employee accepted a position with the Federal Highway
Administration in Puerto Rico, his designated actual place of
residence was identified as a city in the United States.  Each
designated location coincided with the employee's duty station. 
The agency has set forth no rational basis to alter the
contemporaneous determination of actual place of residence and the
employment agreement with each individual, which assured each that
he would be entitled to home leave allowances upon the completion
of a fixed tour of duty.

    In July 1989, the agency offered to Mr. Torres, who accepted,
a position in Puerto Rico.  The conditions for employment identify
Dover, Delaware as the employee's actual residence.  This is signed
by Mr. Torres and an approving officer.  Mr. Torres was employed by
the agency, with an official duty station of Dover, Delaware, from
December 1986 through August 1989, when Mr. Torres moved to Puerto
Rico to assume his new position.  The employment agreement entitles
Mr. Torres to round-trip travel expenses from Puerto Rico to his
actual place of residence, for the purpose of taking leave, upon
the fulfillment of particular conditions, which he has satisfied.

    In 1984, the agency offered to Mr. Sandoval, who accepted, a
position in Puerto Rico.  The conditions for employment identify
Charleston, West Virginia as the employee's actual residence.  This
is signed by Mr. Sandoval and an approving officer.  Mr. Sandoval
was employed by the agency, with an official duty station of
Charleston, West Virginia, from 1980 through 1984, when Mr.
Sandoval moved to Puerto Rico to assume his new position.  The
employment agreement entitles Mr. Sandoval to round-trip travel
expenses from Puerto Rico to his actual place of residence, for the
purpose of taking leave, upon the fulfillment of particular
conditions, which he has satisfied.

    The agency states in its submission:

    In following the criteria established by Comptroller
    General Decisions B-197205 in the matter of Rafael
    Arroyo, and B-196466 in the matter of Alexander Sambolin,
    we reviewed the facts concerning each employee's actual
    place of residence to determine if we errored when we
    identified their actual place of residence upon their
    transfer to Puerto Rico.  In both cases, we determined we
    errored and informed the employees in memorandums dated
    August 8, 1994 that we would show their actual place of
    residence to be Puerto Rico and not Dover, Delaware or
    Charleston, West Virginia, and will issue an SF-50 to
    correct the errors.  Both employees requested a
    reconsideration . . . .

In reaching its recent conclusions for each employee, the agency
looked to the places of birth, education, and prior employment. 
None of these are indicators of actual place of residence at the
time of appointment or transfer to the post of duty in Puerto Rico.

    The agency has not demonstrated any error in the earlier,
contemporaneous determinations of the places of actual residence
for each employee.  The present attempt by the agency to alter the
determination is premised upon irrelevant facts.

    The agency has put forward no rational basis to alter the
designated actual place of residence of either employee.  Those
earlier determinations reflect the duty stations of each employee;
nothing suggests that either employee resided at other than the
place designated in his agreement signed and approved by the
agency.



                                    ____________________________
                                    JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                    Board Judge