Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ___________________ December 1, 1999 ___________________ GSBCA 15022-RELO In the Matter of ANTONIO R. CORTEST Antonio R. Cortest, Merritt Island, FL, Claimant. R. Michael Imphong, Chief, Allowances Unit, Personnel Resources Compensation and Entitlements, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Air Force. NEILL, Board Judge. Mr. Antonio Cortest, a contract specialist employed by the United States Air Force, asks that we review a denial of his request for additional temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE). Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that the agency has acted reasonably in this matter. We, therefore, will not disturb its determination. Background On September 5, 1997, Mr. Cortest was issued orders transferring him from an Air Force contracting office in Kaiserslautern, Germany, to Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. His reporting date at the new duty station was October 31, 1997. The orders authorized TQSE for sixty days and transportation to Florida for Mr. Cortest and two dependents. In addition, the orders authorized Mr. Cortest to use the Relocation Destination Services Program which provides home finding assistance, including rental assistance. Upon arrival in Florida, Mr. Cortest and his family obtained temporary housing at Patrick Air Force Base. His actual duty station, however, was twenty-five miles away at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. He appears to have undertaken a search for suitable permanent quarters promptly. "Suitable permanent quarters," in his opinion, consisted of a three or four bedroom house with sufficient square footage. His search for quarters during the fall season was complicated by what he refers to as the snowbird phenomenon, namely, people from many of the northern states converging on Florida in the fall and seeking short-term leases of housing for the colder months of the year. By letter dated January 20, 1998, Mr. Cortest requested that his TQSE be extended for an additional thirty days. He explained that, since arriving in Florida, he had contacted seventeen realtors and searched intensely and extensively for a suitable residence. Not until shortly before he asked for this extension of TQSE was he successful in his search. He sought an extension of TQSE in order to receive benefits while he completed negotiations for lease of the home he had finally located. Mr. Cortest s request for additional TQSE was denied on the ground that there was an abundance of property for sale and rent within the commuting area of Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The delay in finding quarters was, in the opinion of the authorizing official, attributable not to causes beyond the control of Mr. Cortest, but rather to Mr. Cortest s limitation of his search to rental of a single family home of a specific square footage, with a specific number of bedrooms, and located within specific communities. The official also noted that, although the claimant s orders authorized use of the agency s Relocation Destination Service Program which provides home finding and rental assistance, Mr. Cortest had elected not to utilize it. Mr. Cortest appealed this denial to the Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, and, subsequently, to Air Force Headquarters in Washington, D.C. In both cases the appeal was denied. He now appeals the agency s denial to this Board. Discussion Mr. Cortest, as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense (DOD), is subject to the agency's Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). The JTR in effect at the time of Mr. Cortest's transfer provided that authorizations to extend TQSE were to be held to a minimum. Nevertheless, additional TQSE could be allowed, provided "the head of the DOD component concerned or his/her designee, determines there are compelling reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters." The JTR further provided: Extensions of the temporary quarters may be authorized only in situations where there is a demonstrated need for additional time in temporary quarters 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 DOD components concerned. JTR C13004-A.2 (Aug. 1, 1995). This section of the JTR also contained a limited number of examples of reasons which could be considered beyond the employee's control. Among these was one which read: "inability to locate permanent residence which is adequate for family needs because of housing conditions at the new official station." Id. An Air Force Policy Memorandum concerning TQSE and in effect at the time of Mr. Cortest s transfer provided further guidance on precisely how Mr. Cortest s agency interpreted the applicable provision of the JTR. A section of the memorandum which discussed extension of TQSE specifically stated that the employee must show that quarters are not available either to purchase or to rent. In addition, the memorandum stated: High cost of housing and personal preferences that are not justified, such as minimum square footage or a garage may not be used to support an extension request. Headquarters United States Air Force Temporary Quarters Subsistence Expenses Policy Memorandum, August 30, 1991, at 3. In the past, when asked to review agency rulings on requests for TQSE extensions, we have repeatedly stated that, on matters such as these which are entrusted to the discretion of agency officials, we will not overturn their determinations unless we find them to have been arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Audrey J. Shegog, GSBCA 14621-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,049; Rifat A. Ajjuri, GSBCA 14506-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,788; Daniel A. Rishe, GSBCA 14444-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,677; Baron L. Hudson, GSBCA 14284-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,527. The Air Force interpretation of the JTR provision applicable in this case is indeed rigorous, but nonetheless very much in keeping with the strict tone of the regulation itself. It certainly is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The "snowbird phenomenon" on which the claimant relies so heavily undoubtedly contributed to a tight real estate market at the time Mr. Cortest was seeking permanent quarters but cannot by itself demonstrate that quarters were not available either to purchase or to rent. More importantly, however, we cannot find in the record evidence which would lead to the conclusion that a single family dwelling of three to four bedrooms was an absolute minimum requirement for the claimant and his two dependents. Accordingly, we find the agency s determination in this case to represent a reasonable exercise of its discretion. We will not disturb it. Mr. Cortest's claim is, therefore, denied. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge