____________________ March 13, 1997 _____________________ GSBCA 13676-RELO In the Matter of LARRY J. BURRIS Larry J. Burris, Fairfield, NJ, Claimant. John R. Breslin, Chief, Relocation and Travel Management Office, Washington, DC, appearing for Administrative Office of the United States Courts. PARKER, Board Judge. Mr. Larry J. Burris, an employee of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AOUSC" or "the agency"), was transferred from Jacksonville, Florida to Tampa, Florida in 1991. In 1995, Mr. Burris requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) review AOUSC's denial of three claims relating to that transfer. The case was transferred from GAO to the Board in 1996. Specifically, Mr. Burris requests review of his claims for (1) the cost of driving a second vehicle to his new duty station, (2) additional storage of household goods, and (3) subsistence expenses for his children who visited him every other weekend while he occupied temporary quarters. For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the agency correctly denied Mr. Burris' claims. The pertinent facts are as follows. Mr. Burris got married shortly before his transfer to Tampa. At the time of the transfer, Mr. Burris and his wife still maintained separate residences in Jacksonville and Gainesville, Florida, respectively. Both Mr. Burris and Mrs. Burris drove their cars to the new duty station in Tampa. Mr. Burris maintains that both cars were needed to transport household and personal effects such as clothing and toiletries for use during occupancy of temporary quarters and a computer and peripherals for maintaining financial and household records. Upon their arrival in Tampa on September 26, 1991, Mr. Burris and his wife rented a hotel room, where they stayed until November 8. On November 9, the Burrises moved to a two bedroom apartment. The Burrises occupied the apartment under a one-year lease. When their furniture was delivered on November 9, there was not enough room for all of it in the apartment. Mr. Burris placed the excess furniture in storage until May of 1993, when he and his wife moved into a house. During the time Mr. Burris lived in the hotel and the apartment, his four children visited him approximately every other weekend. The children do not live with Mr. Burris on a full-time basis. Discussion Use of a Second Car The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) generally prohibits agencies from authorizing the use of more than one automobile in connection with permanent change of station travel. The only one of five exceptions to this prohibition which could apply to Mr. Burris' situation provides that use of a second vehicle may be authorized "[i]f there are more members of the immediate family than reasonably can be transported with luggage in one vehicle . . . ." 41 CFR 302-2.3(e)(1)(1991). Mr. Burris has not shown that the agency abused its discretion in refusing to authorize use of a second vehicle under this exception. Every employee who travels in connection with a change of official station must take with him clothes and toiletries for use during occupancy of temporary quarters. Mr. Burris has not demonstrated why transportation of only two family members necessitated the use of two cars, or why he could not have had his computer moved with the rest of his household goods. Additional Storage of Household Goods Mr. Burris maintains that the Government should pay for the storage of his household goods during the nineteen month period in which he lived in the two bedroom apartment which he characterizes as "temporary quarters." We agree with the agency that storage of Mr. Burris' household goods during this period is not authorized. The FTR permits temporary storage of household goods for a period not to exceed ninety days, with the possibility of an additional ninety days under certain conditions if approved by the head of the agency. 41 CFR 302-8.2(d). The Government's responsibility for the household goods ends, however, when they are delivered to the employee's new permanent residence. Notwithstanding Mr. Burris' arguments to the contrary, the two bedroom apartment he rented in November 1991 must be considered to be his permanent residence. Mr. Burris signed a one-year lease, had most of his household goods moved in, and lived there for more than one and a half years. Although we understand that Mr. Burris would like to have found more spacious quarters, there is no indication in the record that when he rented the apartment he reasonably considered it to be anything other than permanent. See 41 CFR 302-5.2(c); Janet Hughes, GSBCA 13731-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,691 (1996). Since Mr. Burris' household goods were delivered to his permanent residence on November 9, 1991, he is not entitled to have the Government pay for storage of his goods after that date. Expense Reimbursement for Visiting Children Under the FTR, a transferred employee is entitled to reimbursement of subsistence expenses for himself and members of his immediate family while occupying temporary quarters. 41 CFR 302-5.2. The term "immediate family" is defined as: (1) Any of the following named members of the employee's household at the time he/she reports for duty at the new permanent duty station . . . : (ii) Children of the employee . . . . 41 CFR 302-1.4(f). GAO has long held that, for purposes of this provision, minor children in the legal custody of an employee's ex- spouse who did not reside with the employee at the time he reported for duty at the new duty station were not "members of the employee's household" and, thus, did not qualify as "immediate family" eligible for reimbursement of subsistence expenses. 44 Comp. Gen. 443 (1965); B-177701 (Apr. 18, 1973). We think that this rule is sensible; since an employee's children in these circumstances do not transfer from one permanent place of residence to another, they should not be eligible for temporary subsistence expenses based upon such a transfer. Decision The claims are denied. ___________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge