BNUMBER:  B-254585.3
DATE:  January 26, 1996
TITLE:  Glenn Rutledge-Short Distance Transfer

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Glenn Rutledge-Short Distance Transfer

File:     B-254585.3

Date:   January 26, 1996 

DIGEST

An agency adopted a regulation to limit relocation benefits for 
transferring employees to transfers in which the new duty station and 
the old duty station are at least 30 miles apart and the employee's 
commute increases at least 30 miles.  Based on this regulation, the 
agency denied an employee's request for reimbursement for relocation 
expenses.  The employee appeals the agency's decision asserting that 
the agency's regulation is contrary to law because it was motivated 
primarily by the agency's desire to reduce relocation expenses.  The 
regulation is within the discretion given agencies under the 
applicable Federal Travel Regulation.  Therefore, the claim is denied.

DECISION

Mr. Glenn Rutledge, an employee of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, appeals his agency's 
denial of relocation expenses incident to his permanent 
change-of-station.  We sustain the agency's determination.

BACKGROUND   

Mr. Rutledge successfully applied for a GM-13 meteorologist's position 
in Silver Spring, Maryland.  At the time of his selection, he had been 
serving as a GS-12 meteorologist at Camp Springs, Maryland, which is 
26 miles from Silver Spring.  As a result of the transfer, which was 
effective May 2, 1993, Mr. Rutledge's commute increased from 24 to 50 
miles.  Subsequently, Mr. Rutledge purchased a home near Silver Spring 
that shortened his commute to 15 miles.

The position for which Mr. Rutledge was selected had been advertised 
in a NOAA Merit Promotion Program vacancy announcement.  This 
announcement did not include a statement that relocation benefits 
would not be offered to the successful applicant.  Therefore, 
according to an agency policy, "When this statement is not on the 
vacancy announcement, if otherwise eligible, an employee from outside 
the commuting area selected from a Merit Promotion Certificate is 
entitled to payment of relocation expenses."  Section 3, para. .03, 
Personnel Bulletin 335-2, Aug. 5, 1987.

The issue here is whether Mr. Rutledge is "an employee from outside 
the commuting area."  The answer depends of the validity of an 
amendment to an agency regulation limiting the circumstances in which 
the agency would pay for relocation expenses.  There is no dispute 
that if the regulation is within the scope of the agency's discretion, 
Mr. Rutledge's claim may not be paid.

The amendment, announced in an October 20, 1992, memorandum, provides 
that to qualify for relocation benefits incident to a transfer, the 
distance between the old and new duty stations and the increase in the 
employee's commute must be at least 30 miles.  Previously, the agency 
applied a 10-mile minimum distance contained in the governmentwide 
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).  The memorandum further states that 
exceptions to this requirement will be considered on a case-by-case 
basis.  The stated purpose of the amendment, according to the 
memorandum, was "concerns previously expressed by the Deputy Under 
Secretary that the cost for NOAA relocations could and should be 
lowered."

Based on this amendment, the agency denied Mr. Rutledge's claim for 
relocation benefits.  Mr. Rutledge requested an exception, which also 
was denied.

In his appeal to this Office, Mr. Rutledge asserts that the agency may 
not use budget constraints to increase the commuting requirement from 
10 miles to 30 miles.  He also asserts that he relied in good faith on 
assurances from his supervisor that the agency had approved relocation 
benefits incident to his transfer.

OPINION

The payment of relocation expenses is authorized under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  
5724 and 5724a (1988).  This authority requires agencies to determine 
first that the transfer is "in the interest of the Government" and not 
"primarily for the convenience or benefit of the employee."  5 U.S.C.  sec.  
5724(a) and (h), respectively.  The determination that a transfer is 
in the interest of the government, however, is only an initial 
threshold requirement.  An employee for whom relocation benefits are 
authorized still must comply with all the applicable regulatory 
requirements.  For example, even when an employee's transfer is in the 
interest of the government, the employee may not be reimbursed real 
estate expenses for the sale of a residence that does not meet the 
title and occupancy requirements in the FTR.  See FTR  sec.  302-6.1(c) and 
(d) (1994).

Another such regulation requires agencies to determine that the 
"relocation was incident to the change of official station."  FTR  sec.  
302-1.7.  The regulation provides, "Ordinarily, a relocation of 
residence shall not be considered as incident to a change of official 
station unless the one-way commuting distance from the old residence 
to the new official station is at least 10 miles greater than from the 
old residence to the old official station."  Id.  The regulation does 
not establish bright-line rules to determine when a relocation is 
incident to a transfer, but rather, requires agencies to take into 
account such factors as the increase in the employee's commuting time 
and distance.

By its own terms, the FTR regulation imposes a duty on agencies to use 
the stated criteria to determine when a relocation is incident to a 
transfer.  The 10-mile figure is only a guideline, not an inflexible 
benchmark, to be considered with other factors, such as the change in 
the time and distance of the employee's commute.  B-256350, May 4, 
1994; John W. Lacey, 67 Comp. Gen. 336 (1988).

This regulation does not prohibit agencies from establishing 
guidelines with a mileage radius greater than 10 miles, providing the 
mileage radius is reasonable.  For example, in B-256350, supra, we 
upheld an Air Force policy to deny relocation benefits for civilians 
transferred with their functions from one base to another base 19 
miles away, even though in the case submitted for our review, the 
employee's commuting distance increased from 24 to 45 miles and his 
commuting time increased from 35 to 75 minutes.

Regarding Mr. Rutledge's assertion that the agency's 30-mile guideline 
is based on cost considerations, we are not aware of any reason why an 
agency may not take budget considerations into account when adopting 
its own regulations, provided, as we find here, that the regulations 
are within the agency's discretion.  Cost may not be used as a factor 
for denying relocation benefits when an individual meets all the 
eligibility requirements for relocation expenses; which is not the 
case here.  See David C. Goodyear, 56 Comp. Gen. 709 (1977) and Paul 
J. Walski, B-190487, Feb. 23, 1979.

As for Mr. Rutledge's claim that he acted in good faith on assurances 
from agency personnel that he would be reimbursed for his relocation 
expenses, the record shows that, although his supervisor told him that 
relocation benefits would be approved, his supervisor did not have the 
authority to make that final determination.  The well-established rule 
is that erroneous advice may not serve as the basis for the payment of 
a claim that is otherwise contrary to law.  See Debra Dreisbach, 
B-261141, Nov. 9, 1995.

Accordingly, the claim is denied.

/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel