November 26, 1997
                                                
 
 
                            GSBCA 14315-RELO
 
 
                 In the Matter of MARK RICHARD MORISETT
 
 
        Mark Richard Morisett, Ann Arbor, MI, Claimant.
 
        Edgardo Aviles, Leader, Travel Team, U.S. Customs Service,
   Indianapolis, IN, appearing for Department of the Treasury.
 
   DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).
 
        In 1996, the U.S. Customs Service transferred customs
   inspector Mark Richard Morisett from Toronto, Ontario, Canada, to
   Detroit, Michigan.  The agency and the employee disagree as to
   who is now responsible for relocation expenses Mr. Morisett
   incurred.
 
        In ordering the transfer, the Customs Service told the
   employee that "[t]ravel and relocation expenses associated with
   this move will be at government expense."  Mr. Morisett signed an
   employment agreement which conditions the Government's payment of
   these expenses, however.  The agreement states:
 
             I agree that in consideration of any employee
        entitlements allowable in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 5701
        through 5726, and implementing regulations thereunder,
        for which I may submit claim and receive monetary
        benefits from the Government in connection with my
        permanent transfer as specified above, I will remain in
        the employ of the U.S. Government for the period [of
        twelve consecutive months] following the effective date
        of this transfer, unless separated for reasons beyond
        my control and acceptable to the U.S. Customs Service.
 
             I further agree that, in the event of violation of
        this agreement on my part, I will assume personal
        liability for any and all funds expended by the Customs
 
        Service to such benefits, and this indebtedness will be
        recoverable from me as a debt due the United States.
 
        Mr. Morisett incurred various expenses in relocating from
   Toronto to Detroit, and the Customs Service reimbursed him for
   those costs.  A bit more than four months after the transfer, the
   agency removed the employee from Government service for cause.
 
        The agency maintains that in accordance with the terms of
   the employment agreement, it is entitled to recover the money it
   paid in relocation benefits.  The employee disagrees.  The two
   sides agree that the issue turns on the question of whether,
   under the terms of the agreement, during the twelve-month period
   following the move, the employee was "separated for reasons
   beyond [his] control and acceptable to the [agency]."
 
        The General Accounting Office, which previously settled
   claims of or against the United States involving relocation
   expenses incident to federal civilian employees' transfers of
   official duty station, held that when an agency separates an
   employee from Government service for cause, the reasons for the
   separation are considered to be within the control of the
   employee.  The decisions explain, "The fact that the employee may
   have had little control over the separation itself does not
   necessarily mean that he had no control over the events or
   reasons which resulted in the separation."  Obviously, the events
   or reasons were unacceptable to the agency.  Relocation Expenses
   - Failure to Fulfill Service Agreement, B-114898 (July 31, 1975);
   see also Jeffrey P. Cardinal, 64 Comp. Gen. 643 (1985).  We
   consider these decisions to be correct and the reasoning behind
   them to be sound.  Consistent with them, we deny Mr. Morisett's
   claim that he is entitled to keep the money the Customs Service
   paid him when he relocated from Toronto to Detroit.
 
        Mr. Morisett suggests that the agency has not demonstrated
   that it had valid cause for removing him from Government service. 
   This is not the appropriate forum for raising such a defense.  We
   simply decide the case based on the knowledge that removal for
   cause occurred.  If the claimant can succeed in having the
   removal overturned by a proper authority, we would revisit the
   matter of responsibility for his relocation costs.
 
        Mr. Morisett also maintains that he is due payments for
   unused annual leave, salary adjusted for night differential, and
   Thrift Savings Plan contributions.  Claims against the United
   States relating to federal civilian employees' compensation and
   leave are settled by the Office of Personnel Management.  31
   U.S.C.A.   3702(a)(4) (West Supp. 1997).  We are sending copies
   of all documents in this case to that Office for its
   consideration of these additional matters raised by this
   claimant.
 
                                 _________________________ 
                                 STEPHEN M. DANIELS 
                                 Board Judge