____________________________ July 25, 1997 ____________________________ GSBCA 13690-RELO In the Matter of ROLAND J. LANDIS Roland J. Landis, Jacksonville, FL, Claimant. G. A. Terrill and Judy Hughes, Travel Division, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of the Navy. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. At issue in this case is claimant's entitlement to a sixty-day extension of temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE). The Disbursing Officer, Personnel Support Activity, Department of the Navy, Jacksonville, Florida, denied the extension request pursuant to Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) paragraph C13004-A.2, and claimant filed this claim with the General Accounting Office (GAO). Because claimant has failed to demonstrate a compelling reason beyond his control warranting an extension of TQSE, we conclude that the agency properly denied the request. Background Claimant was transferred from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to Mayport, Florida, on September 1, 1994, and he and his three dependents began occupying temporary quarters on September 2. Prior to his relocation, claimant applied for and was granted sixty days of TQSE. After his relocation to Florida, claimant applied for an extension of TQSE. On October 29, claimant's spouse broke her ankle, which required surgery. Claimant's spouse was bedridden for six weeks and barely ambulatory for another three weeks thereafter. However, one day after his spouse's injury, on October 30, claimant contracted to purchase a home which was to be completed in ninety days, contingent upon the successful sale of his home in New Jersey. The construction company would not start building the new home until claimant had a contract to sell his New Jersey home. The company gave claimant sixty days -- and later an additional thirty days to sell his New Jersey home. When claimant had not sold his New Jersey home in ninety days, the construction company cancelled his contract. On November 12, claimant received his orders authorizing a thirty-day extension of TQSE, and he received a check reflecting this TQSE amount in December 1994. Just prior to receiving this check, claimant applied for an additional thirty-day extension of TQSE which was later granted. However, on January 30, 1995, claimant received a letter from the agency's Commanding Officer in Jacksonville, Florida, which stated that he did not meet the criteria necessary for any TQSE extension. Furthermore, the letter requested that claimant pay back the amount which he had received in December 1994 reflecting the first thirty-day extension of TQSE. According to claimant, his son was scheduled to start college in September 1994, but he had to delay matriculation to help support two households in Florida and New Jersey. As of September 21, 1995, claimant had still not purchased a home in Florida. Discussion Statute provides that the Government shall pay certain expenses incurred by its employees who are "transferred in the interest of the Government from one official station or agency to another for permanent duty." These expenses include "[s]ubsistence expenses of the employee and his immediate family for a period of 60 days while occupying temporary quarters when the new official station is located within the United States [or other specified locations]." "The period of residence in temporary quarters may be extended for an additional 60 days if the head of the agency concerned or his designee determines that there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters." 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a) (3) (1994). The payment of these expenses is not an entitlement, however; it must be made "[u]nder such regulations as the President may prescribe and to the extent considered necessary and appropriate, as provided therein." 5 U.S.C.  5724(a); Thomas M. Hood, GSBCA 138450-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,957; Thomas H. Potts, GSBCA 13700-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,938. The President has delegated to the Administrator of General Services the authority to issue these regulations, which are part of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). Exec. Order No. 11,609, 3 CFR 586 (1971-1975), reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C.  301 app. at 467-68 (1994); 41 CFR ch. 302 (1996). At the time of claimant's relocation, FTR 302-5.2(a)(2) provided, in relevant part: Subsistence expenses . . . may be allowed for an additional period of time not to exceed 60 consecutive days provided the head of the agency, or his/her designee, determines that there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters. . . . Authorizations to extend the temporary quarters period and the number of days authorized shall be held to a minimum. Extensions of the temporary quarters may be authorized only in situations where there is a demonstrated need for additional time due to circumstances which have occurred during the initial 60-day period of temporary quarters occupancy and which are determined to be beyond the employee's control and acceptable to the agency. Examples of compelling reasons which could be considered as beyond the employee's control may include, but are not limited to, the following situations: (i) Shipment and/or delivery of HHG [household goods] to new residence is delayed due to extended transit time incident to ocean transportation, strikes, customs clearance, hazardous weather, fires, floods or other acts of God, or similar events. (ii) New permanent residence cannot be occupied because of unanticipated problems (i.e., delays in settlement on new residence, short term delay in construction of new residence, etc.). (iii) Inability to locate permanent residence which is adequate for family needs because of housing conditions at the new official station. (iv) Sudden illness, injury, or death of employee or immediate family member.[] In the present case, claimant cites three reasons for an extension of TQSE: (1) the injury sustained by his wife which allegedly delayed the location of a permanent residence; (2) claimant's difficulty in selling his New Jersey home which in turn delayed the construction of a permanent home in Florida; and (3) his son's delay in starting college so he could help support two households. As the Comptroller General recognized, the serious illness or injury of an employee's immediate family member might be considered a compelling reason for extending TQSE if the injury prevented claimant from locating a permanent residence. E.g., Darold D. Foxworthy, B-241761 (Apr. 15, 1991). However, in the instant case, the agency reasonably determined that claimant's spouse's broken ankle did not warrant extending TQSE. Claimant's spouse sustained her ankle injury on October 29, and claimant signed a contract to purchase a home on October 30, one day after her injury. The time frame of only one day between the injury and the contract for sale indicate that the injury did not delay the selection of a permanent residence and, therefore, did not necessitate an extension of TQSE. The second issue is whether claimant's inability to sell his New Jersey home constituted the type of unanticipated settlement delay, or short-term construction delay which would warrant an extension of TQSE under the applicable regulations, FTR 302.5-2(a)(2) and JTR C13004-A.2(b). Claimant argues that since the construction company would not start building his home in Florida until he had a contract to sell his home in New Jersey, there existed a short-term construction delay which also provided a basis for an extension of TQSE. Claimant further notes that his inability to sell this home prevented him from obtaining a mortgage on any other property. The Comptroller General concluded that agencies properly denied extensions of TQSE when an alleged settlement delay was caused solely by a claimant's inability to sell a home at the old duty station within the initial TQSE period. Blanch Brown, B-260580 (Nov. 13, 1995); Michael F. Locke, B-221751 (July 11, 1986). These GAO decisions have made it clear that "the fact that an employee has not yet sold his former residence within the initial 60-day period may not, in itself, be considered the circumstance which gives rise to the need for an additional period of temporary quarters occupancy." Locke. Nor is claimant's son's delay in starting college a circumstance which prevented claimant from occupying a permanent residence. If anything, it was an unfortunate result of claimant's inability to sell his former home. As such, in this case, claimant's son's delay in starting college is not a compelling circumstance warranting an extension of TQSE. Claimant's final contention stems from the erroneous issuance by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard of an extension of TQSE. Claimant asserts that it is unfair that the TQSE extension which was initially granted by the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard was later rescinded by Defense Finance and Accounting Service. However, the initial determinations were impermissible under governing regulations. Although the rescission was unfortunate, in that it caused claimant to return money he had been given, it was in accordance with those regulations. It is well established that Government error is not binding and provides no basis for reimbursement. Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 415 (1990); Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (Nov. 8, 1996). Decision The claim is denied. __________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge