BNUMBER:  B-256996
DATE:  November 20, 1995
TITLE:  Dr. William H. Fuhrman-Relocation Expenses

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

Matter of:Dr. William H. Fuhrman-Relocation Expenses

File:     B-256996

Date:     November 20, 1995

DIGEST

1.  An employee was transferred from Mexico to his new permanent duty 
station in St. Paul, Minnesota, and had multiple deliveries of his 
household goods from permanent and temporary storage to his temporary 
quarters in St. Paul and then to his permanent quarters in Woodbury, 
Minnesota.  Although the Federal Travel Regulation permits an 
employee's household goods to be moved in separate shipments, and the 
origins and destinations of the shipments may be at one or more 
points, the government's obligation to the employee for the shipments 
is limited to "the cost of transporting the property in one lot . . . 
to the new official station."  41 C.F.R.  302-8.2(e) (1991).  When 
temporary storage is authorized, as it was in this case, the 
limitation is based on the constructive cost of transporting the 
household goods in one lot to temporary storage, storage costs for not 
more than 180 days, and then delivery in one lot to the permanent 
residence.

2.  A claim for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) is 
limited under 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(3) to 120 days, so a claim for 
lodging expenses incurred after the 120 days of eligibility may not be 
paid.  Although the employee limited his claim for the additional 
period to the difference in monthly rent between a year's lease and a 
month-to-month lease, on the basis that he would have leased the 
apartment for a year but the agency told him he could be retransferred 
shortly, a claim for TQSE in any amount may not be paid for a period 
beyond the 120-day maximum prescribed by statute.
                                                                                                                  
3.  An employee's household goods were in nontemporary storage, and he 
was entitled to have them moved to his new duty station under a 
government bill of lading.  He chose to move them himself and claimed 
reimbursement as the amount of the warehouseman's discount for not 
moving the goods.  When an employee is authorized to have his 
household goods moved by the government bill of lading method, and he 
moves his household goods himself, he may be reimbursed his actual 
expenses, such as vehicle rental fees, fuel, toll charges, not to 
exceed what it would have cost the government to have the goods moved.  
The employee is not entitled to be reimbursed based on the amount of 
the carrier's discount for not moving the goods under the bill of 
lading.

DECISION

This is in response to a request for an advance decision whether Dr. 
William H. Fuhrman, an employee of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, may be reimbursed 
certain moving and storage charges and lodging expenses that he 
incurred during his occupancy of temporary quarters incident to his 
relocation from Mexico to St. Paul, Minnesota.[1]  We conclude that 
his moving and storage expenses may be reimbursed consistent with this 
decision but that his claim for additional lodging expenses must be 
denied.  

BACKGROUND  

Dr. Fuhrman reported to his new duty station in St. Paul on May 2, 
1991.  He and his family initially occupied motel rooms, and then 
beginning in June they rented apartments for the purpose of reducing 
their lodging costs.  He claimed and received reimbursement for his 
temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for the maximum time 
period of 120 days allowed under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 
from May 15 to September 15, 1991.  He states that he had still not 
moved into permanent quarters at that time because his agency had told 
him he would shortly be reassigned, and because of that, his agency 
told him that he should not sign a year's lease on an apartment but 
should rent month to month.  Dr. Fuhrman's claim of $2,889.54 for 
additional lodging costs is for the period of time after his 
eligibility for TQSE expired, from September 16, 1991, through May 
1992 when he moved from his rented apartment into his permanent 
quarters.  His claim is for the difference in rent of that apartment 
for the 8ï¿½-month period between the amount he paid under his 
month-to-month lease and the amount he would have paid under a year's 
lease.

When Dr. Fuhrman moved from Mexico with his family, he placed his 
household goods in temporary storage in Mexico and then had them moved 
to a warehouse in St. Paul.  It appears that from May through August 
of 1991, all of his household goods were in temporary storage.  
However, by the end of August the temporary storage the agency 
originally authorized had expired, so near the end of August, Dr. 
Fuhrman had most of his household goods delivered to his rented 
apartment, except a 3,000-pound segment which he left in temporary 
storage in the warehouse in St. Paul.  The agency paid for the 
temporary storage charges of May through August, 120 days, and the 
charge for delivering the household goods to the apartment in August.  
However, Dr. Fuhrman claims the storage charges of $1,103.84 that he 
paid for the 3,000 pounds of household goods left in storage from 
September 1991 through May 1992, at which time these goods were 
delivered out of storage into his permanent quarters.  He also claims 
the charges of $1,520.42 he paid for delivery of the 3,000 pounds of 
goods, as well as packing and delivery charges for the balance of his 
goods from his apartment, into his permanent quarters.  The agency did 
authorize and reimburse an additional 60 days of temporary storage in 
1993, which brought the total length of temporary storage authorized 
and reimbursed to 180 days, the maximum time period allowed under the 
Federal Travel Regulation (FTR)  302-8.2(d).

Before Dr. Fuhrman was assigned to Mexico, he had left approximately 
1,000 pounds of household goods in nontemporary storage in South 
Dakota, and the agency paid the storage charges for those household 
goods until Dr. Fuhrman was reassigned from Mexico to St. Paul.  The 
FTR  302-9.2(d), states that at that point the employee is no longer 
eligible for the storage charges to be paid but that the agency may 
extend the period for payment of storage charges to avoid inequity.  
Apparently, the agency extended the period and paid nontemporary 
storage charges for those household goods until October 1991, but Dr. 
Fuhrman claims the storage charges of $123.30 for these 1,000 pounds 
from October through May 1992, when he went to South Dakota, picked up 
the goods from the warehouse, and delivered them himself into his 
permanent quarters.  In addition, he claims $314.14 for delivering 
these goods himself.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The agency certifying officer asks whether there is any authority 
under the home service transfer allowance (HSTA) for the payment of 
Dr. Fuhrman's rental and storage and delivery claims.  The agency has 
confirmed that Dr. Fuhrman's travel and relocation orders were not 
issued under the authority of Foreign Service Act of 1980, but under 
title 5 of the United States Code.[2]  An employee transferred in May 
1991, such as Dr. Fuhrman, was eligible for HSTA only if he was in the 
United States between assignments to posts in foreign areas.  See 5 
U.S.C.  5924(2)(B), and Dennis H. Shimkoski, 68 Comp. Gen. 692 
(1989).  We understand that this was not the case with Dr. Fuhrman's 
assignment in Minnesota in 1991.  Therefore, he is not eligible for a 
HSTA incident to that assignment.  Thus, the agency has correctly 
considered Dr. Fuhrman's relocation entitlements under title 5 of the 
Code.

Under section 5724a(a)(3) of title 5, an employee may be paid TQSE to 
reimburse him for expenses incurred while living in temporary quarters 
incident to a transfer.  The agency paid Dr. Fuhrman TQSE for the 
maximum period of 120 days allowed by section 5724a(a)(3).  Although 
for the period beyond 120 days he claims only the additional expense 
he incurred for rent on a month-to-month basis over what he would have 
paid under a yearly lease, there is no authority to reimburse him in 
any amount for a period beyond the maximum 120 days prescribed by law.  
54 Comp. Gen. 638 (1975).[3]

Dr. Fuhrman claims delivery and storage charges for his household 
goods that were in temporary and nontemporary storage.  We will treat 
the goods that were in nontemporary storage separately from those that 
were in temporary storage.

The household goods that were in temporary storage are the goods that 
Dr. Fuhrman had with him in Mexico and that were shipped from there 
into temporary storage in a warehouse in St. Paul.  They were then 
split into two lots in which the major portion was delivered into Dr. 
Fuhrman's temporary quarters while the other lot (3,000 pounds) 
remained in temporary storage.  Later, both lots were finally 
delivered into his permanent quarters, from the warehouse and from the 
temporary quarters.  Dr. Fuhrman claims the $1,520.42 charges the 
warehouseman in St. Paul charged for delivering into his permanent 
quarters the 3,000-pound lot that had been in temporary storage nearly 
a year and also for packing the rest of the household goods that were 
in Dr. Fuhrman's temporary quarters and delivering them to his 
permanent quarters.  Since the agency had already paid one charge for 
delivery of the larger lot from temporary storage into Dr. Fuhrman's 
temporary quarters, it questioned whether it may pay multiple delivery 
charges.
 
These multiple delivery charges may be allowed to the extent that they 
do not exceed the cost of transporting the property in one lot to the 
new official station.  In accordance with this limitation we have held 
that where temporary storage is authorized, as it was in this case, 
the limitation is based on the constructive cost of transporting the 
household goods in one lot to temporary storage, storage costs, and 
then delivery in one lot to the permanent residence.  Lyndon A. 
Werner, B-232375, May 31, 1989.
  
In this case, the record did not indicate what the constructive cost 
of transportation, storage (for 180 days), and delivery to the 
residence in Woodbury in one lot would have been.  The agency should 
determine that amount and compare it with the transportation into 
storage, the temporary storage costs of all the household goods for 
120 days and 3,000 pounds for 60 days, and the multiple delivery 
charges from temporary storage into temporary quarters, from temporary 
quarters into permanent quarters, from temporary storage into 
permanent quarters, and from temporary quarters into temporary 
storage.  If the constructive amount is less than the charges actually 
incurred, Dr. Fuhrman would be responsible for the additional 
amount.[4]

If the comparison described in the preceding paragraph results in an 
amount for which Dr. Fuhrman is responsible, he may be able to claim 
that amount, not in excess of the $1,520.42 delivery charge (which 
should be reduced by the amount included therein for delivery of the 
3,000 pounds of household goods in temporary storage to the permanent 
quarters), in connection with his separate TQSE because he used the 
household goods he had delivered in late August 1991 in his temporary 
quarters in lieu of renting furniture.  Since furniture rental can be 
included in determining the average daily lodging costs for temporary 
quarters, we have held that the cost of drayage of the employee's 
household goods which reasonably related to the occupancy of temporary 
quarters in lieu of furniture rental may be prorated over the period 
of temporary quarters subsistence expense entitlement.  In this case 
the delivery charge should be prorated only for the month of September 
since that is the only month that Dr. Fuhrman had the use of his 
household goods in his temporary quarters during the time period that 
TQSE was reimbursable.  Actual reimbursement is, of course, subject to 
the maximum allowable for temporary quarters entitlement.  Aaron L. 
Howe, B-217435, Aug. 29, 1985.

We now turn to the household goods that were in nontemporary storage 
in South Dakota while Dr. Fuhrman was stationed in Mexico.  Dr. 
Fuhrman claims $314.14 as delivery charges for this 1,000 pounds of 
household goods into his permanent quarters in Woodbury, Minnesota.  
However, these were not actual delivery charges of the warehouseman 
(because Dr. Fuhrman delivered them himself) but a discount given on 
the warehouseman's total charges, which included preparing the 
household goods for delivery and moving them out of the warehouse into 
Dr. Fuhrman's possession.  When an employee is authorized to have his 
household goods moved by the government bill of lading method, as was 
Dr. Fuhrman, and he moves his household goods himself, he may be 
reimbursed his actual expenses, such as vehicle rental fees, fuel, 
toll charges, etc., not to exceed what it would have cost the 
government to have the goods moved (in this case apparently $314.14).  
See 41 C.F.R.  101-40.203-2(d).  Dr. Fuhrman may file a claim for his 
actual expenses, with such documentation as required by agency 
regulations, but his $314.14 claim for the amount of the South Dakota 
warehouseman's discount may not be paid.
  
Dr. Fuhrman also claims reimbursement for the $123.30 nontemporary 
storage charges for this 1,000 pounds of household goods that he paid 
for storage from October 1991 through May 1992.  Although the agency 
in 1993 did authorize and reimburse an extra 60 days of temporary 
storage charges (part of the nontemporary charges were added to the 
reimbursement of the additional temporary storage charges), since the 
provisions in the FTR concerning payment of temporary and nontemporary 
storage are different,[5] the agency incorrectly treated them both as 
if they could be paid for the same amount of time.  The time limit of 
180 days for temporary storage does not apply to nontemporary storage 
of household goods.  As mentioned previously, the point at which 
nontemporary storage is to terminate under FTR  302-9.2(d), is 1 
month after the employee reports for duty at his new station ". . . 
unless to avoid inequity the agency extends the period."  The agency 
apparently initially extended the period for reimbursement of 
nontemporary storage charges through September 1991 and then through 
October 1991 when it combined nontemporary storage charges with the 
entitlement for temporary storage and extended them both to 180 days 
in 1993.  We do not question the agency's action in that regard, and 
the hybrid payment of approximately $306 in 1993 for both kinds of 
storage should be used as a credit for the government after the 
comparison process referred to in connection with the multiple 
delivery charges is completed.  As the matter now stands, that is all 
Dr. Fuhrman is due.  See Richard A. Falanga, B-201823, Oct. 9, 1981.  
However, in view of the uncertainty of where his permanent duty 
station would be until he was appointed to the Minnesota 
Epidemiologist position in March 1992,[6] we would have no objection 
if the agency further approved the period of nontemporary storage 
through May 1992, in order to avoid inequity, so that Dr. Fuhrman 
could fully recover the nontemporary storage charges of $123.30 he 
paid.

Dr. Fuhrman's claim may be settled accordingly.

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

1. The request for decision was submitted by the Authorized Certifying 
Officer, USDA, National Finance Center, New Orleans.

2. Dr. Fuhrman's travel order indicated that per diem was to be paid 
according to the FSTR [Foreign Service Travel Regulations].  However, 
that is consistent with the Federal Travel Regulation  301-7.3(c), 
issued to implement the travel and relocation provisions of title 5 of 
the United States Code, which indicates that per diem allowances for 
official travel in foreign areas, such as Mexico, are not to exceed 
the rates referred to in the FSTR.  The FSTR designation on the travel 
order does not convert the underlying basis for the transfer, and 
incidental travel, from title 5 to title 22, United States Code, which 
generally applies to foreign service officers and which contains a 
HSTA.

3. While Dr. Fuhrman's claim for rental expenses is only for the 
difference between the amount paid and the lower amount that would 
have resulted from a year's lease, it is noted that had Dr. Fuhrman 
taken a year's lease, the agency may have presumed that the quarters 
were not temporary quarters but permanent quarters, thus calling into 
question the basis for the agency paying any TQSE expenses after the 
signing of the lease.  See Johnny M. Jones, 63 Comp. Gen. 531 (1984).

4. Dr. Fuhrman claims temporary storage charges of $1,103.84 for the 
months of September 1991 through May 1992, $395.84 of which, although 
appearing on a storage bill, was actually a charge for delivery into 
the warehouse and handling some of the household goods that Dr. 
Fuhrman exchanged after they were delivered into his temporary 
quarters.  This $395.84 should be separated from the temporary storage 
charges and included with the other delivery charges, as explained in 
the preceding text.  Of the remaining temporary storage charges 
claimed, only $144, the charges for September and October 1991, may be 
added to the charges for the initial 120 days for comparison purposes 
because that 180 days of charges is the maximum length of time for 
which reimbursement of temporary storage may be authorized.  FTR  
302-8.2(d).  The temporary storage charges for November 1991 through 
May 1992 may not be reimbursed.  Richard D. Dougherty, B-242095, Jan. 
28, 1991. 

5. Based on separate statutory provisions, 5 U.S.C.  5724(a) and 
5726, respectively.

6. Dr. Fuhrman was transferred as the Veterinary Medical Officer from 
St. Paul to Rochester, Minnesota, in January 1992, but that transfer 
was cancelled due to the unsettled nature of the personnel situation 
for the agency.