BNUMBER: B-259960
DATE: September 21, 1995
TITLE: Darrell M. Thrasher
**********************************************************************
Matter of:Darrell M. Thrasher
File: B-259960
Date: September 21, 1995
DIGEST
Department of the Army employee responded to a job opportunity
announcement which specified that permanent change-of-station benefits
would not be paid. He thereafter sought reimbursement for his
relocation expenses based on his Mobility Agreement which stated in
part that benefits will be provided under controlling regulations.
Under Reconsideration of Platt, 61 Comp. Gen. 156 (1981), agencies may
issue a regulation which sets forth conditions under which relocation
expenses will or will not be paid, provided that the information is
clearly communicated in advance and in writing. Paragraph C4100-2(c)
of Volume 2, Joint Travel Regulations, is controlling and specifically
provides for such discretionary determination. Since the job
opportunity announcement stated that the benefits would not be paid,
the claim is denied.
DECISION
This decision responds to correspondence from Mr. Darrell M. Thrasher,
who is appealing our Claims Group's Settlement Z-2869317, Dec. 9,
1994, which disallowed his claim for relocation expenses incident to
his transfer in March 1993. We sustain our Claims Group's action for
the following reasons.
Mr. Thrasher was employed as a Grade GS-9, step 5, Telecommunications
Specialist for the Department of the Army (DA) at the White Sands
Missile Range, New Mexico. He responded to a DA civilian job
opportunity announcement for a career position as a Telecommunications
Specialist in its Information Management career program (entry level
GS-5 or GS-7, with promotion potential to GS-11), which was to begin
as a 2-year training program at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. He was
accepted into the program and took a reduction to grade GS-7, executed
a DA Employment and Mobility Agreement (DA Form 5227-R) and traveled
to Fort Sam Houston to begin training. Although no travel
authorization was issued to him for that move, he thereafter sought
reimbursement for relocation benefits.
The agency denied his claim for the reason that the announcement to
which he responded specifically provided that relocation expenses
would not be paid and that permanent change-of-station (PCS) expenses
would be the responsibility of the selectee. Further, the agency
reports that Mr. Thrasher was advised orally that relocation expenses
would not be paid. Our Claims Group sustained that disallowance.
Mr. Thrasher states that paragraph 4 of his Mobility Agreement
provides that, if an individual is a current federal employee when
selected for the intern program, initial PCS benefits are payable and
that, since the Mobility Agreement he executed was his contract with
the DA, it, in effect, superseded the job announcement. We do not
agree with Mr. Thrasher's analysis.
The payment of travel, transportation, and relocation expenses of
transferred employee is authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5724 and 5724a
(1988), as implemented by the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and
supplemented by Volume 2 of the Joint Travel Regulations (2 JTR), for
civilian employees of the Department of Defense and those of the
military establishments. In our decision in Reconsideration of Eugene
R. Platt, 61 Comp. Gen. 156 (1981), we recognized that, where an
agency recruits or requests an employee to transfer to a different
location, such transfer is normally regarded as being in the interest
of the government and relocation expenses are payable and that, when
an agency issues an announcement of an opening under its Merit
Promotion Program, such action normally is deemed to be a recruitment
action. However, we added that an agency may issue regulations
concerning relocation expenses and merit promotions setting forth
guidelines as to the specific conditions and factors to be considered
in determining whether relocation expenses will be paid and that any
such information must be clearly communicated in advance and in
writing to all applicants, preferably by a statement on the vacancy
announcement. If such a regulation is issued, we concluded as
follows:
"[E]ach person who applies will do so with an understanding of
the conditions under which relocation expenses will or will not
be paid, and acceptance of an offer would be tantamount to
accepting a condition of employment which the person could not
successfully contest unless it was shown to be arbitrary or
capricious, or contrary to the decisions of this office."[1]
The Department of Defense (DOD) has issued such regulations. Volume
2, Joint Travel Regulations, provides in section C4100-2(c), effective
February 2, 1991, that the DOD component should determine prior to
advertising the vacancy whether PCS allowances will be paid so that
this information is provided to applicants. If the decision is not to
pay PCS allowances, the reasons will be documented by the appropriate
official and all applicants selected for interview must be notified in
writing of the decision.
As noted above, the job vacancy announcement here expressly stated
that "relocation expenses will not be paid." Thus, each person who
applied was on notice of the nonpayment of relocation expenses if the
individual was selected for the position. We believe that the DOD
regulation and the specific notice in the job announcement satisfied
the conditions we outlined in Reconsideration of Platt, supra.
The language in the Mobility Agreement to which Mr. Thrasher refers,
states in part that "initial PCS benefits will be provided under
controlling regulations." Contrary to Mr. Thrasher's view, because
the phrase "will be provided" is used, that phrase does not require
payment. The "controlling regulations" are 2 JTR C4100-2(c) which
establish agency discretion in the matter. We note that, in addition
to the statement made in the job opportunity announcement, Mr.
Thrasher was orally informed that relocation expenses would not be
reimbursed and that no travel authorization was issued for his travel.
Since the agency determined before the fact that PCS benefits would
not be paid to employees who transferred to their telecommunications
intern program and made a specific statement of intent in their job
announcement, we find no basis to allow his claim. The prior action
taken by our Claims Group in his case is sustained.
/s/Seymour Efros
for Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel
1. Reconsideration of Eugene R. Platt, supra, at 162.