B-172160, APR 6, 1971

B-172160, APR 6, 1971

REAL ESTATE EXPENSES - ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION SUSTAINING PRIOR SETTLEMENT WHICH DISALLOWED CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. BECAUSE NO CONTRACT WAS SIGNED FOR THE SALE OF CLAIMANT'S PROPERTY DURING THE INITIAL ONE-YEAR PERIOD AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION WAS NOT A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION, THERE BEING NO SHOWING OF PENDING LITIGATION, THE CLAIM FALLS OUTSIDE SECTION 4.1(E) OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIR. NO. A-56. THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING THE CLAIM WAS THEREFORE PROPER.

TO MR. JULIAN J. BURNEKO:

YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 2, 1971, WITH ENCLOSURE, REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1971, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN ROME, NEW YORK, INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

BY TRAVEL ORDER NO. T-37-69, DATED DECEMBER 13, 1968, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED FROM ROME, NEW YORK, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AS A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. YOU REPORTED FOR DUTY AT YOUR NEW STATION ON DECEMBER 30, 1968. SETTLEMENT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN ROME WAS NOT CONSUMMATED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 3, 1970.

IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1971, WE MADE REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH 4.1E, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, WHICH PROVIDES THAT EXPENSES REQUIRED TO BE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF A DWELLING WILL BE REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT IF THE SETTLEMENT DATE IS NOT LATER THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE EMPLOYEE REPORTED FOR DUTY AT THE NEW DUTY STATION. WE SAID THAT THE CIRCULAR FURTHER PROVIDES THAT AN EXTENSION OF TIME MAY BE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE WHEN SETTLEMENT IS DELAYED BY LITIGATION; ALSO, THAT AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF TIME NOT IN EXCESS OF ONE YEAR MAY BE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE HEAD OF THE AGENCY OR HIS DESIGNEE WHEN HE DETERMINES THAT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THE EXCEPTION EXIST WHICH PRECLUDES SETTLEMENT WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE YEAR PERIOD OF THE SALE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO IN GOOD FAITH BY THE EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE INITIAL ONE -YEAR PERIOD.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE RECORD DOES NOT REVEAL ANY LITIGATION INVOLVING YOUR FORMER PROPERTY OR INDICATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-YEAR LIMIT.

YOUR PRESENT LETTER IS ACCOMPANIED BY A COPY OF PART H OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS WHICH REPEATS THE PROVISIONS OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56. YOU SAY THAT THE REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT ONE OF THE ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR GRANTING AN EXTENSION IS "CIVIL DISTURBANCE OR SIMILAR SITUATIONS RENDERING PROPERTY IN THE AFFECTED AREA MORE DIFFICULT TO SELL." YOU ASK THAT YOUR CLAIM BE CONSIDERED ON THAT BASIS. ALSO, YOU REFER TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION BY ADMIRAL WEITZENFELD, ACTING VICE COMMANDER, NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON MARCH 6, 1970, MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER YOU REPORTED TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IN WASHINGTON, D.C., YOU ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THIS OFFICE VIA THE NAVY FINANCE OFFICE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR FOR THE SALE OF YOUR RESIDENCE IN ROME. THAT REQUEST WAS APPROVED BY REAR ADMIRAL D. K. WEITZENFELD, USN. SINCE, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT ANY LITIGATION WAS INVOLVED OR THAT YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF YOUR PROPERTY DURING THE INITIAL ONE YEAR PERIOD, THIS WAS NOT A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION OF THE ONE YEAR PERIOD.

UNDER THE PERTINENT REGULATIONS IT CONSISTENTLY HAS BEEN HELD THAT A DELAY NOT CAUSED BY LITIGATION OR COVERED BY A VALID ADMINISTRATIVE EXTENSION OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD DOES NOT AFFORD A BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF REAL ESTATE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF A RESIDENCE. 47 COMP. GEN. 753 (1968) AND 48 COMP. GEN. 71 (1968).

ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.