B-173672, AUG 5, 1971

B-173672, AUG 5, 1971

CHANGE OF STATION - REAL ESTATE EXPENSES - REIMBURSEMENT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF IRVIN J. ROSE FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE IN PHILADELPHIA, PA., INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF STATION FROM HYATTSVILLE, MD., TO SAN DIEGO, CALIF. SECTION 4.1, OMB CIR. NO. A-56 PROVIDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL REIMBURSE AN EMPLOYEE FOR EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE AT HIS OLD OFFICIAL STATION PROVIDED THE DWELLING WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE TRANSFER. SECTION 1.2I DEFINES OFFICIAL STATION AS BEING THE RESIDENCE FROM WHICH THE EMPLOYEE REGULARLY COMMUTES TO WORK. SINCE THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE MEMBER DID NOT COMMUTE TO WORK FROM PHILADELPHIA ON A DAILY BASIS, THE COMP. GEN. CAN FIND NO BASIS FOR GRANTING THE REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT.

TO MR. IRVIN J. ROSE:

YOUR LETTER OF JULY 14, 1971, TRANSMITTED A VOUCHER CLAIMING REIMBURSEMENT OF $1,966.50 FOR REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE SALE OF YOUR FORMER HOME IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER FROM HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY DURING 1970.

THE PAPERS SUBMITTED WITH YOUR CLAIM SHOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DISALLOWED ADMINISTRATIVELY BY THE NAVAL SHIP ENGINEERING CENTER AS NOT COMING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, I.E., PARAGRAPH C 8350 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, AND TO THE SAME EFFECT SECTION 4 OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56.

YOU URGE THAT THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE JUSTIFY REIMBURSEMENT WITHIN THE LAW AND REGULATIONS. YOU EXPLAIN THAT YOU WERE RECRUITED FROM THE PHILADELPHIA AREA IN 1967 TO WORK FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IN WASHINGTON. THROUGHOUT THE NEXT 3 YEARS YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU MAINTAINED YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN PHILADELPHIA IN ORDER TO ASSURE THE COMPLETION OF YOUR SON'S MEDICAL TRAINING AND THAT YOU COMMUTED TO PHILADELPHIA ON WEEKENDS.

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 5 U.S.C. 5724A REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN RELOCATION EXPENSES IS AUTHORIZED TO EMPLOYEES TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OFFICIAL STATION TO ANOTHER, INCLUDING THE EXPENSES OF THE SALE OF THE RESIDENCE AT THE OLD STATION. THE STATUTORY REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING 5 U.S.C. 5724A WHICH WERE ISSUED EFFECTIVE JULY 21, 1966, ARE NOW CONTAINED IN OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED JUNE 26, 1969. IN PERTINENT PART SECTION 4.1 OF THOSE REGULATIONS PROVIDES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL REIMBURSE AN EMPLOYEE FOR EXPENSES REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY HIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF ONE RESIDENCE AT HIS OLD OFFICIAL STATION, PROVIDED THE DWELLING AT THE OLD OFFICIAL STATION WAS THE EMPLOYEE'S RESIDENCE AT THE TIME HE WAS FIRST DEFINITELY INFORMED THAT HE IS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A NEW OFFICIAL STATION. SECTION 1.2I OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 PROVIDES THAT OFFICIAL STATION - CONCERNING ENTITLEMENT TO EXPENSES RELATED TO SALE OF A RESIDENCE - MEANS THE RESIDENCE OR OTHER QUARTERS FROM WHICH THE EMPLOYEE REGULARLY COMMUTES TO AND FROM WORK, EXCEPT THAT IF THE OFFICIAL STATION IS IN A REMOTE AREA WHERE ADEQUATE FAMILY HOUSING IS NOT AVAILABLE WITHIN REASONABLE DAILY COMMUTING DISTANCE THEN RESIDENCE INCLUDES THE DWELLING WHERE THE FAMILY OF THE EMPLOYEE RESIDES, BUT ONLY IF SUCH RESIDENCE REASONABLY RELATES TO OFFICIAL STATION AS DETERMINED BY AN APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL. THE FOREGOING REGULATORY PROVISIONS ACCORD WITH OUR RELATED DECISIONS. SEE 46 COMP. GEN. 703 (1967), 47 ID. 109 (1967).

SINCE YOU DID NOT COMMUTE ON A DAILY BASIS FROM PHILADELPHIA TO YOUR DUTY STATION AND AS THE EXCEPTION REFERRED TO ABOVE DOES NOT OTHERWISE APPLY, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR REGARDING YOUR HOME IN PHILADELPHIA AS BEING YOUR RESIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF ANY OF THE SELLING EXPENSES THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR TRANSFER FROM HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND, TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR CLAIM IS FOR DISALLOWANCE.