________________________________________ August 25, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 14034-RELO In the Matter of D. LARRY FRASER D. Larry Fraser, Jacksonville, FL, Claimant. Ivan Lawson, Chief, Travel Branch, United States Customs Service National Finance Center, Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of the Treasury. BORWICK, Board Judge. D. Larry Fraser, claimant, an employee of the United States Customs Service, Department of the Treasury, requested reimburse- ment of $6,094.80 for real-estate expenses allegedly incurred in purchasing a new house in Miami, Florida, claimant's most recent duty station. Claimant also requested expenses of $1,045.75 for a house-hunting trip. The agency denied the claim because claimant owned a residence in Miami and was not entitled to expenses associated with purchasing a second residence. Claimant filed a claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO), which issued an initial denial. D. Larry Fraser, Z-2869719 (Mar. 5, 1996). Claimant sought reconsideration. We sustain the decision of the agency. To understand the issue presented, it is necessary to describe claimant's peripatetic career. Claimant was permanently stationed in Miami, and in 1983, purchased a townhouse there. In February 1991, the agency permanently transferred claimant to Tampa, Florida. Claimant kept his house in Miami. In February 1992, the agency transferred claimant to Washington, D.C. Claimant then rented out his townhouse in Miami, with the expectation of selling it upon his next permanent transfer. The lease is cancelable upon one hundred days notice by the landlord. His townhouse was severely damaged by Hurricane Andrew, but, with repairs, was made habitable. Claimant's tenants continued to live in the townhouse. During claimant's tour of duty in Washington, D.C., claimant rented a house as his residence. In April 1993, the agency informed claimant of his impending permanent transfer back to Miami, Florida. The agency cut orders authorizing a house-hunting trip and relocation expenses. On the last day of claimant's house-hunting trip, claimant received a call from the agency advising him that he was ineligible for reimburse ment of real estate expenses because he owned a residence in Miami. Claimant was then in the final stages of negotiating a contract for the purchase of a new home; he elected to complete the purchase. The agency argues that claimant is not entitled to reimburse ment of real estate expenses because "he should have moved back into his old home." The agency argues that the expenses of his house-hunting trip were "unnecessary and avoidable." Claimant maintains that he is entitled to reimbursement of real estate expenses because his old house is unsuitable due to (1) the damage caused by Hurricane Andrew, (2) the fact that the townhouse was repaired with renters in mind, (3) an undesirable change in the characteristics of the neighborhood, and (4) claimant's elevated social status arising from his promotion to a senior position within the agency. For the house-hunting trip, claimant argues that he took the trip in "good faith reliance on an official authorization against which the expenses had been incurred before the mistake was discovered." The GAO held that in the case of an employee who is re- transferred to an old duty station, before expiration of the time allowed for reimbursement of real estate expenses incident to the original transfer, an agency's obligation to reimburse him for real estate expenses is limited to the expenses already incurred and those which could not be avoided. Robert T. Celso, 64 Comp. Gen. 476 (1985); Warren L. Shipp, 59 Comp. Gen. 502 (1980). Shipp involved an employee who unsuccessfully claimed expenses of sale of a residence at his former duty station where the employee contract- ed to sell the residence after he had been notified that he was to be re-transferred to that same duty station. We have followed Shipp's reasoning in refusing reimbursement to an employee who sold his house after his re-transfer. George S. Lu, GSBCA 13659-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,797. If an employee is transferred back to his original duty station within three years, the Government will reimburse the employee for allowable and reasonable expenses that he already incurred, but will not pay additional real estate expenses unless they cannot be avoided. Citing various subjective factors, claimant maintains that his old townhouse is not now suitable as a residence. Claimant argues that Shipp's rule of avoidance of unnecessary real-estate expenses upon re-transfer is limited by Celso to an employee's "suitable" residence. Claimant misreads Celso. In Celso, the employee was trans- ferred in 1981 to Corpus Christi, Texas. Upon his transfer, the employee purchased a house and sought reimbursement of $1,954.50 for that purchase. The employee, however, had worked previously in Corpus Christi, and, in 1967, had purchased a townhouse there which he had rented since 1969. Based on Shipp, the agency disallowed the reimbursement request since the employee already owned a house--the one rented in 1969--in Corpus Christi. GAO held that Shipp was based on the fact that the period between an employee's original transfer from a particular duty station and the later transfer back to that duty station was relatively brief. It was reasonable to assume that upon transfer back, the property remained a suitable residence for the employee. Thus Shipp did not apply, if the employee was notified of his re-transfer to the former duty station after the time had expired for completion of real estate transactions which qualified for reimbursement incident to the original transfer. Otherwise, held the GAO, the time limitation provides the "basis for an objective standard" in determining the application of the rule. Here, unlike Celso, claimant's transfer to his old duty station was within the maximum three-year (two years plus one year extension) limitation in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) for claiming expenses incident to the original transfer. 41 CFR 302- 6.1(e) (1992). There is no justification for considering that claimant's old townhouse was unsuitable; since renters lived there, the house was clearly habitable. Through exercise of the lease's cancellation clause, claimant could have regained possession of his townhouse upon his re-transfer to Miami. For the reasons stated above, claimant's expenses for both the house-hunting trip and the purchase of his new house were unneces sary and avoidable. While claimant's desire for a new and better residence is understandable, under these circumstances, the Government is not required by statute or regulation to pay for the expenses associated with fulfilling that desire. As for the house- hunting trip, claimant maintained that he relied on the erroneous travel authorization, but as the GAO noted, that authorization was quickly withdrawn. ________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge