Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 __________________ March 19, 1998 __________________ GSBCA 14332-RELO In the Matter of JIMMY D. GRAVES Jimmy D. Graves, Walker, LA, Claimant. Alberta Frost, Deputy Administrator, Office of Management, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Agriculture. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, Jimmy D. Graves, a former employee of the Department of Agriculture, asks that we review a ruling by that agency concerning his request for relocation expenses. Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that the agency has correctly determined how Mr. Graves's expenses should be treated. We recommend, therefore, that Mr. Graves submit for the agency's consideration a request for expenses incurred while on temporary duty at the agency's office in Jackson, Mississippi. Background In 1997, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the Department of Agriculture underwent a major reorganization. As a result, the FSIS office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to which Mr. Graves was assigned as a GS-6 secretary, was scheduled to be closed. Mr. Graves, therefore, applied for and was selected for a GS-7 secretarial position at a recently opened FSIS district office in Jackson, Mississippi. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Graves applied for relocation authorization. In doing so, he specifically asked that he be permitted to defer sale of his residence at Baton Rouge and movement of his household goods to some later unspecified date within the two-year period allowed under applicable regulations. On May 16, 1997, Mr. Graves received authorization to relocate to Jackson. The orders included authorization for temporary quarters for the first thirty days. On May 19, Mr. Graves and his wife traveled to Jackson on a house hunting trip. Mr. Graves was given an advance of $1000 for this trip. He states that, while there, he and his wife located an apartment which would not be available until July 1. On May 25, he returned to Baton Rouge. Two days later, on May 27, he interviewed with the Air Force for a secretarial position in Baton Rouge. Mr. Graves' reporting date at his new work station in Jackson was June 9. Nevertheless, on Thursday, May 29, he was issued travel orders authorizing him to proceed to Jackson a week early for a five-day work detail lasting from June 2 to 6. The orders provided for a per diem allowance and for travel by privately owned vehicle. Also on May 29, Mr. Graves submitted a claim for $982.50 for his earlier trip to Jackson to look for housing. On Friday, May 30, the Air Force offered Mr. Graves the secretarial position at Baton Rouge for which he had interviewed earlier that same week. He accepted with the understanding he would start work in three weeks. On learning of his selection, Mr. Graves states that he contacted a number of FSIS officials. Among these were his present and future supervisors. Mr. Graves states that his future supervisor, although surprised, nevertheless, when asked if Mr. Graves should still come to Jackson one week early as planned, replied: "Yes, we could use you." Mr. Graves also contends that on that same date, Friday, May 30, he sought guidance from the agency's personnel section and the relocation department. With regard to his plan to proceed to Jackson, he writes: "At no time did anyone say I was not going to be authorized reimbursement of relocation expenses or anything that could be construed as such." On Sunday, June 1, Mr. Graves secured his home in Baton Rouge and left for Jackson with his wife and three sons. There is significant disagreement between the agency and Mr. Graves concerning his discussions with FSIS officials prior to his leaving for Jackson. The agency states that Mr. Graves was advised by the Chief of the Fiscal Services Branch of the Budget and Finance Division that the authorization to relocate to Jackson would be canceled since he had already accepted an offer of employment with the Air Force at Baton Rouge. The agency further alleges that Mr. Graves objected to this cancellation and explained that it was his definite intention to report to Jackson one week in advance of his official start date, to work there "on detail" for the first week, and to remain there for one two-week pay period after his official start date. The Chief of the Fiscal Services Branch is reported to have then advised Mr. Graves that he could not be authorized relocation expenses since he was not transferring from Baton Rouge to Jackson for permanent duty. Mr. Graves simply states in his report to us that he was not even able to reach this official by phone on Friday, May 30, and that he spoke instead with someone in her office. He writes that the person with whom he spoke assured him that the departure for Jackson could be considered relocation. In addition, the agency contends that Mr. Graves' new supervisor in Jackson was not told that Mr. Graves only intended to remain in Jackson for three weeks. Furthermore, the agency's servicing personnel office has advised that none of its staffing specialists were contacted by Mr. Graves prior to his departure for Jackson. Mr. Graves and his family remained in Jackson for three weeks while he worked at the district office. They then returned to their home in Baton Rouge and Mr. Graves began his work with the Air Force as originally scheduled. He has since submitted a claim for $3,953.11 covering the cost of travel to Jackson and temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for the three weeks he and his family were in Jackson. Discussion The agency advises us that it is prepared to reimburse Mr. Graves for the cost of his house hunting trip to Jackson because it believes that this trip was taken in good faith based on the expectation that he would be relocating from Baton Rouge to Jackson. It opposes, however, paying Mr. Graves' claim for TQSE during his three-week stay in Jackson prior to returning to Baton Rouge to begin working for the Air Force. In its report to the Board, the agency states: We believe that since Mr. Graves went to Jackson with the intention of remaining there for only 3 weeks, it must be considered a temporary duty assignment (TDY). Mr. Graves believes he is entitled to TQSE because it was authorized and, allegedly, no one told him prior to his departure for Jackson that he would not qualify for it. As already noted, the agency has a different version of what Mr. Graves was told before his departure for Jackson. We see no benefit in attempting to resolve the factual issues in dispute here. The fundamental issue is whether Mr. Graves' trip to Jackson on June 1 represented the start of a TDY assignment or a permanent change of station (PCS) move entitling him to relocation expenses. This issue can be readily resolved based on facts which are not in dispute. A long line of cases decided by the Comptroller General over the years discusses the analysis to be performed in deciding whether assignment to a particular location should be considered TDY or PCS. We have previously stated that we consider the reasoning used in those cases to be sound and that we will follow it. Rodney C. Lowe, GSBCA 13850-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,962. According to the Comptroller General, the question of whether an assignment is temporary or permanent is a question of fact to be determined from the orders directing the assignment, the duration of the assignment and the nature of the duties to be performed. Edward W. DePiazza, 68 Comp. Gen. 465 (1989). The agency has discretion to determine whether the assignment will be treated as a PCS or as TDY. Executive Exchange Program, 70 Comp. Gen. 378 (1991). In this case, Mr. Graves proceeded to Jackson on June 1 pursuant to orders which detailed him there for one week and authorized travel expenses and a per diem allowance. It is true that transfer orders had been issued earlier based upon a report date of June 9. Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that at the time of his departure from Baton Rouge on Sunday, June 1, Mr. Graves was already fully aware that his stay in Jackson would be temporary and of short duration. He had already accepted a position with the Air Force in Baton Rouge and planned to begin work there in three weeks. Mr. Graves' stay in Jackson did not in fact go beyond three weeks. At that time he returned with his family to their residence at Baton Rouge and he began his work with the Air Force. Given these undisputed facts, we see no reason why the agency should not treat Mr. Graves' entire three- week stay at Jackson as TDY rather than a PCS. His assignment to Jackson was clearly not a permanent change of station. We agree, therefore, with the agency that since Mr. Graves went to Jackson with the intention of remaining there for only three weeks, his stay there must be considered to be a temporary duty assignment. Accordingly, we find Mr. Graves entitled to travel and per diem for the period in question, but for himself only. We likewise concur with the agency's determination to pay the claimed cost of Mr. Graves' house hunting trip to Jackson. The claim for TQSE, however, is denied, since such reimbursement is only available in the event of an actual PCS move. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge