[Question Concerning Reimbursement for Relocation Expenses]
B-217489: Aug 29, 1985
Additional Materials:
- Full Report:
Contact:
The National Treasury Employees Union requested a decision as to whether two employees may be reimbursed for relocation expenses in connection with a change of permanent duty station. GAO noted that a Merit Promotion Vacancy Announcement was issued for one or more revenue officer positions which stated that selection would be done on a competitive basis and limited to districtwide applicants. The claimants argued that: (1) they should be reimbursed for moving expenses because they were competitively selected for the positions; and (2) the transfer was in the interest of the government since they were found to be the best candidates. GAO noted that: (1) the claimants were forewarned that expenses would not be reimbursed; and (2) the transfer was a lateral transfer and not a promotion. GAO has held that: (1) where an employee's transfer does not represent a promotion but a lateral transfer to a position having no greater promotion potential, the transfer is for the employee's convenience and not in the interest of the government; (2) entitlement to relocation expenses is contingent on an agency's determination that transfer is not primarily for the convenience of the employee; and (3) an agency's determination will not be disturbed unless it is found to be erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Accordingly, the employees were not entitled to reimbursement for their relocation expenses.
Oct 26, 2020
-
Chronos Solutions, LLC; Inside Realty, LLC; BLB Resources, Inc.
We sustain the protests.
B-417870.2,B-417870.3,B-417870.4 -
-
Oct 23, 2020
Oct 22, 2020
Oct 20, 2020
Oct 16, 2020
Looking for more? Browse all our products here
