B-245962 September 3, 1992
Highlights
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Relocation Residence transaction expenses Reimbursement Eligibility Property titles Employee was reimbursed for two-thirds of the relocation services company fee incurred in the sale of his residence at his old duty station. At the time he was first officially notified of his transfer to a new duty station. Title to the residence was in the names of himself. His nondependent father who was not a member of his immediate family. Reimbursement was denied since. At the time you were officially notified of your transfer. Title to the residence was in the names of yourself. Your nondependent father who was not a member of your immediate family as required by the Federal Travel Regulation.
B-245962 September 3, 1992
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Relocation Residence transaction expenses Reimbursement Eligibility Property titles Employee was reimbursed for two-thirds of the relocation services company fee incurred in the sale of his residence at his old duty station. He may not be reimbursed for the remaining one-third of the fee since, at the time he was first officially notified of his transfer to a new duty station, title to the residence was in the names of himself, his wife, and his nondependent father who was not a member of his immediate family. See Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. Secs. 302-6.1(c) and 302-1.4(f) (1991).
r. David R. Yeskoo 390 W. Fifth Avenue Parkesburg, Pennsylvania 19365
Dear Mr. Yeskoo:
We refer to your letter dated August 28, 1991, with enclosures, appealing the settlement action Z-2867015, April 16, 1991, of our Claims Group. In that action, the Claims Group determined that the Internal Revenue Service's denial of your claim for reimbursement of the remaining one- third of the relocation services company fee incurred in the sale of a residence at your old duty station. Reimbursement was denied since, at the time you were officially notified of your transfer, title to the residence was in the names of yourself, your wife, and your nondependent father who was not a member of your immediate family as required by the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302.6.1(c) (1991).
Upon our review of the record, including your letter of appeal, we find no error of fact, law, or regulation which would justify a reversal of the Claims Group's settlement action. Accordingly, that action is affirmed.