____________

                               June 6, 1997
                               ____________


                             GSBCA 14194-RELO


                   In the Matter of DR. NATHANIEL CLARK


     Dr. Nathaniel Clark, Ames, IA, Claimant.

     Alberta C. Frost, Deputy Administrator, Office of Management,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC, appearing for
the Department of Agriculture.

NEILL, Board Judge.

     The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), on behalf
of Dr. Nathaniel Clark, an employee of the agency, has asked if it
is possible to grant this employee an extension of the three-year
limitation for the filing of claims for reimbursement of costs
associated with the sale of a personal residence.  We treat this
inquiry as a request for an opinion under 31 U.S.C. 3529.  Based
on the facts presented, we conclude that there is no authority to
extend the limitation in question.   

                                Background

     On January 24, 1994, Dr. Clark reported for duty at a new duty
station in Ames, Iowa.  He had been transferred to Ames from the
agency s office in Atlanta, Georgia.  As part of this transfer, he
was offered the full complement of relocation allowances, including
the sale of his residence in Atlanta.  At that time, however, Dr.
Clark indicated that, although he wanted to use the relocation
services, he preferred to delay initiation into the program.  

     In November 1995, Dr. Clark requested an extension of the two-
year period originally authorized for applying for relocation
services.  The request was granted.  He was given until January 23,
1997, to complete relocation at Government expense.  His request
for the extension was based on the fact that the agency was
considering a reorganization at the time and it was uncertain if
the Ames area office would remain open.  In July 1996, the agency
announced the closure of the Ames office.  Because of the ongoing
reorganization, however, Dr. Clark was not able to determine his
next point of assignment.  He, therefore, decided to delay further
the sale of his residence in Georgia and the purchase of another
residence until told where his new duty station would be.  

     In March 1997, Dr. Clark was notified that he had been
selected to be District Manager of the newly established district
office in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  In conjunction with this new
transfer, he asked to be reimbursed for the sale of his residence
in Atlanta, Georgia.  The agency declined to approve the request
based on two facts.  First, under applicable regulation, the
residence sold in conjunction with this relocation must be that
from which Dr. Clark commuted while working in Ames.  Second, the
extended period for sale of the residence in Atlanta had already
expired.  

     The agency is sympathetic to Dr. Clark s request and believes
that, under the circumstances, he acted prudently in delaying the
sale of his house in Atlanta.  For this reason it supports his
request for an exception to the rules which preclude reimbursement
and asks if one can be made in this case.

                                Discussion
  
     Unfortunately for Dr. Clark, the agency is entirely correct in
its reading of the applicable provisions of the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR).   The FTR provides that, for a transfer such as
that which Dr. Clark has now received from Ames, Iowa, to
Minneapolis, Minnesota, he is entitled to reimbursement for certain
closing costs associated with the sale of the residence from which
he regularly commuted to and from work while assigned to his work
station in Ames.  41 CFR 302-1.4(k) (1996) (as referenced in 302-
6.1(b)).  

     Certainly, with regard to Dr. Clark's latest transfer, this
provision is of no use for the sale of his home in Atlanta.  It
was, however, the basis for authorizing the reimbursement of
closing costs on the residence in Atlanta on the occasion of Dr.
Clark's transfer from there to Ames.  The FTR provides when such
reimbursement is authorized the settlement date for the sale must
be within a period  not later than two years after the date that
the employee reported for duty at the new official station.   This
two-year time limit for completion of the sale may be extended, but
only  for an additional period of time not to exceed one year.   41
CFR 302-6.1(e) (1996).  Clearly, in Dr. Clark's case, this extended
period has now expired.  
  
     As the agency itself recognizes, the situation now confronting
Dr. Clark is not dissimilar to that in which other Government
employees have found themselves in the past and sought relief.  The
conclusion inevitably reached, however, is that there is no
authority under existing regulations for the reimbursement of
expenses incurred in connection with the sale or purchase of an
employee s home, regardless of the extenuating circumstances
involved, if the employee has failed to meet the applicable time
limitation set out in the regulation.  E.g., Linda L. Jeffrey,
GSBCA 13963-RELO (Feb. 27, 1997); John J. Cody, GSBCA 13701-RELO,
97-1 BCA  28,694 (Nov. 25, 1996). 

     Accordingly, the agency is correct in concluding that Dr.
Clark is not entitled to recover costs associated with the sale of
his former residence in Atlanta.  These expenses cannot and should
not be paid.  



                                   _____________________
                                   EDWIN B. NEILL
                                   Board Judge