Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________ April 29, 1998 _______________ GSBCA 14537-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS W. BURT Thomas W. Burt, Chicago Heights, IL, Claimant. Paul T. Stewart, Finance Officer, Regional Office, Department of Veterans Affairs, St. Petersburg, FL, appearing for Department of Veterans Affairs. NEILL, Board Judge. Mr. Thomas W. Burt, an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, asks that we review a determination of his agency denying him reimbursement for the costs of a house hunting trip taken after he received permanent change of station (PCS) orders transferring him from Hines, Illinois, to St. Petersburg, Florida. After visiting his new duty station, Mr. Burt concluded that the cost of comparable housing there would be prohibitively expensive. He, therefore, declined to accept the transfer on the ground that suitable housing was not available. The agency has refused to pay Mr. Burt s claim. It rejects his contention that suitable housing was not available and, therefore, his contention that he declined his transfer for reasons outside his control. Mr. Burt has not convinced us that the agency s position on this matter is unreasonable. We, therefore, affirm the agency's determination. Background On March 7, 1996, Mr. Burt signed a service agreement to work as a computer specialist at his agency's office in St. Petersburg, Florida. On March 13, 1996, orders were issued authorizing him to move from his old duty station in Illinois to his new duty station in Florida. These orders authorized, among other things, movement and storage of his household goods, temporary quarters subsistence expenses for himself and his family for a period of sixty days, and a house hunting trip for a maximum duration of ten days. On March 20, 1996, Mr. Burt and his wife traveled to St. Petersburg to look for suitable housing. He and his wife returned from this trip on March 26. Immediately thereafter, on March 27, Mr. Burt advised agency officials that he was declining his new position. He explained that, to maintain a standard of living at St. Petersburg which would be comparable to what he was currently enjoying in Illinois, he would require an annual salary in excess of that which he would actually be paid. Rather than lower that standard for himself and his family for no apparent benefit, he concluded that it would be best to decline the reassignment. On April 1, 1996, Mr. Burt submitted a claim for $1,549.51 for the cost of his house hunting trip to St. Petersburg the previous month. The claim was denied on the ground that, under applicable regulation, the claim could not be paid because Mr. Burt had declined to accept his new assignment for reasons within his control. Mr. Burt protested this denial and contended that his reason for declining his new position was his inability to locate suitable housing for himself and his family. This, he contended, was not a matter within his control. Upon reconsideration, the agency reaffirmed its original decision denying Mr. Burt's claim. Mr. Burt subsequently asked this Board to review that determination. Discussion In appealing the agency's denial of his claim, Mr. Burt has provided the Board with additional details regarding the specific economic impact of any move he might make from Illinois to Florida. He has also explained that, when he requested the agency to extend his reporting date, this request was denied. He observes that an extension would have given him more time "to research the area and possibly arrive at a solution." At the time of Mr. Burt's transfer to St. Petersburg, the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provided: If an employee accepts a transfer and, after making a trip to the new station for the purpose of finding permanent quarters or after the spouse has made such a trip, declines the transfer, he/she is subject to provisions of 302-1.5 concerning recovery of amounts reimbursed for travel. 41 CFR 302-4.3(a) (1995). Section 302-1.5, referred to in the above cited provision, reads as follows: In connection with the transfer of employees between official stations within the continental United States, expenses authorized under this chapter shall not be allowed until the employee selected for such transfer agrees in writing to remain in the service of the Government for 12 months following the effective date of the transfer, unless separated for reasons beyond his/her control that are acceptable to the agency concerned. In case of a violation of such an agreement, including failure to effect the transfer, any funds expended by the United States for expenses authorized under this chapter shall be recoverable from the individual concerned as a debt due the United States . . . . As already noted, Mr. Burt signed his service agreement for his new position in St. Petersburg on March 7, 1996, and shortly thereafter left for St. Petersburg with his wife on a house hunting trip. Immediately on his return, he advised the agency that he did not intend to effect the transfer. Clearly the facts of this case fall within the purview of FTR 302-4.3(a). FTR 302-1.5, however, which is referenced in 302-4.3(a), is of questionable application. Mr. Burt did not receive a travel advance for his house hunting trip to St. Petersburg. Rather, he is attempting to be reimbursed for the costs of that trip. Furthermore, the dispute in this case is not whether the reason for Mr. Burt's separation from Government service was beyond his control. Indeed, nothing in the record suggests that he has left Government service. More on point here are decisions of the Comptroller General, who formerly exercised the responsibility which is now ours of resolving claims such as this. The position taken by the Comptroller General on claims for house hunting costs in cases where a Government employee remains in Government service but declines a transfer after a house hunting trip is similar to that which appears in FTR 302-1.5. In such cases, the inquiry is not whether the reason for separation from Government service was beyond the employee s control and acceptable to the agency but simply whether the reason why the employee declined the transfer was beyond the employee s control and acceptable to the agency. Generally, actual transfer is a prerequisite to reimbursement of relocation costs such as those incurred in a house hunting trip to the new duty station. Nevertheless, if the employee's reason for not completing the transfer upon return from a house hunting trip is determined by the agency to be outside the employee's control, the costs of the trip may be paid. The Comptroller General considered such determinations to be a matter for the agency and not to be disturbed unless clearly erroneous, arbitrary, or capricious. Murrel C. Hoage, 63 Comp. Gen. 187 (1984); Richard J. Hughes, B-197816 (June 24, 1981); William C. Moorehead, 56 Comp. Gen. 606 (1977). We consider this approach a sound one and follow it here. As the claimant of payment from the Government, Mr. Burt has the burden of showing us why he should prevail. Paul B. Garvey, GSBCA 13658-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,690 (1996). To do so here, he must convince us: (1) that he was precluded from completing his transfer owing to a cause outside of his control and (2) that the agency's refusal to accept as true and correct the alleged lack of housing was arbitrary, capricious, or without a rational basis. Given the record before us, the claimant has clearly failed to meet this burden. The agency rejects Mr. Burt's claim because it is convinced that suitable housing was available in the area. The agency's report to the Board points out that thirteen employees, in addition to Mr. Burt, accepted transfers to the same division and at the same time as Mr. Burt and were all able to find suitable housing. Mr. Burt has not refuted this contention. Neither has he provided evidence which would support his contention that suitable housing was not available. The results of the short house hunting trip establish, at best, that suitable housing could not be found in the short period of time allotted for the visit. Furthermore, we find particularly telling Mr. Burt's statement to us that, with an extended reporting date, he might possibly have arrived at a solution. This suggests to us that not even he is certain that, with additional time, he would still not have located adequate housing. TQSE had been authorized for Mr. Burt and his family precisely in order to facilitate the search for suitable permanent quarters. He chose not to explore this possibility, but instead withdrew his prior acceptance of his transfer immediately upon return from a short house hunting trip to St. Petersburg. The determination of whether Mr. Burt declined his transfer for reasons beyond his control and acceptable to his agency is clearly a determination to be made first by the agency itself. Given the facts here, the agency acted reasonably in refusing to accept the alleged lack of suitable housing as a reason justifying Mr. Burt's refusal to effect his transfer. We, therefore, affirm the agency s determination and deny Mr. Burt s claim. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge