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.