June 20, 1997
                                                  


                             GSBCA 14163-RELO


                    In the Matter of BRENT T. WAHLQUIST


     Brent T. Wahlquist, Alton, IL, Claimant.

     Charles M. Albrecht, Certifying Officer, Office of Surface
Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement, Denver, CO, appearing for
Department of the Interior.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Brent T. Wahlquist, an employee of the Department of
the Interior, incurred costs in the purchase of a newly constructed
home as the result of a permanent change of station move from
Dumfries, Virginia, to Alton, Illinois.  By letter dated May 26,
1997, the agency requested a decision pursuant to 31 U.S.C.  3529
as to whether certain expenses arising from the construction of his
home in Illinois should be paid. 

     Mr. Wahlquist was reimbursed $1,760.50 for the following costs
relating to the permanent loan on his new residence:

     Recording Fees                $   18.00
     Appraisal Fee                 $   50.00 
     Flood Certification           $   25.00
     Credit Report                 $   47.50
     Title Insurance               $  100.00
     Settlement/Closing Fee        $   50.00
     Loan Origination Fee          $1,470.00

     Mr. Wahlquist has requested reimbursement for $2,382 in
expenses incurred in connection with the construction loan on his
new residence.  For the closing on the construction loan, Mr.
Wahlquist claimed the following items which are the types of costs
eligible for reimbursement under the Federal Travel Regulation
(FTR), 41 CFR chs. 301-304 (1996):

     Recording Fees                $   35.00
     Appraisal Fee                 $  250.00 
     Flood Certification           $   25.00
     Title Insurance               $  406.00
     Settlement/Closing Fee        $   50.00
     Loan Origination Fee          $  800.00
     Recording Fee for             $   16.00
     release of construction loan
     Inspections, lien waiver,     $  800.00 
     and disbursement of funds in
     connection with construction
     loan           

     A transferred employee's entitlement to reimbursement of real
estate expenses incurred incident to relocation is governed by a
statutory provision, 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(4) (1994), and the
pertinent provisions of the FTR, which implements the statute.  The
FTR provides that, to the extent allowable, the Government shall
reimburse a transferred employee for expenses required for "the
purchase (including construction) of one dwelling at his/her new
official station."  41 CFR 302-6.1 (1996).  Under subsection
301-6.2(d)(1)(x), reimbursable items include "[e]xpenses in
connection with construction of a residence, which are comparable
to expenses that are reimbursable in connection with the purchase
of an existing residence."  Under subsection 301-6.2(d)(2)(vi),
expenses that result from construction of a residence are
nonreimbursable. 

     We have construed these provisions of the FTR to provide that
an employee who chooses to construct a home at the new duty station
will be permitted to recover real estate expenses to the same
extent as an employee who purchased an existing home.  Where each
stage of the building process involves a number of expenses which
would appropriately be reimbursed in connection with the purchase
of an existing residence, the employee may be reimbursed only once
for each type of expense that is allowable under the regulations.
Additionally, we have held that the expenses incurred incident to
permanent financing on the completed house are most representative
of expenses an employee would incur to purchase an existing
residence and that entitlement determinations should be based
primarily on an examination of that settlement.  When similar fees
and expenses are incurred more than once as a result of the
decision to construct a new home rather than buy an existing
residence, the duplicate fees are considered to have resulted from
the construction of the new home and are not reimbursable.  Thomas
S. Cushing, GSBCA 13867-RELO (Apr. 30, 1997).

     The fact that claimant had to close on two loans in order to
construct the new home is immaterial.  The costs incurred in the
construction loan closing would not have been incurred had claimant
purchased an existing residence.  Except for two items -- the $800
for inspections, lien waiver, and disbursement of funds in
connection with construction loans, and the $16 recording fee for
the release of the construction loan -- the costs assessed in the
closing for the permanent financing are for the same items as the
costs in the final closing.  Mr. Wahlquist is not entitled to
reimbursement of these identical items, as they are duplicative of
those paid in the permanent loan closing.  The other two items
which were not duplicative are also not reimbursable, as these
costs are clearly a cost associated solely with the construction
loan.





                                   _______________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge