BNUMBER:  B-260456
DATE:  June 4, 1996
TITLE:  John W. Chambers

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

Matter of:John W. Chambers

File:     B-260456

Date:June 4, 1996

DIGEST

1.  After being advised by agency officials that he would be 
transferred contingent upon approval of an exception to a freeze on 
transfers, employee sold his residence, purchased a new residence, and 
incurred other expenses prior to issuance of written travel orders.  
Employee's expenses may be reimbursed since the subsequently issued 
travel orders authorized residence transaction expenses and other 
relocation expenses and preexisting administrative intent to transfer 
the employee was clearly evident at the time the expenses were 
incurred.

2.  Employee may be reimbursed for temporary duty travel expenses 
since travel orders were issued retroactively to carry out the 
agency's original intent to assign him to that travel.  Employee may 
also be reimbursed for the expenses of travel to his new duty station, 
temporary quarters occupancy, and shipment of household goods where 
written orders for the transfer were subsequently issued authorizing 
those expense items.

DECISION

This decision is in response to a request submitted by Ms. Jeanne 
DiGange, authorized certifying officer, Office of Finance and 
Management, National Finance Center, Department of Agriculture (USDA), 
concerning the authority to reimburse an employee for expenses 
incurred incident to a permanent change of duty station and expenses 
of a temporary duty detail.

BACKGROUND

Mr. John W. Chambers, an employee of the Forest Service, was stationed 
at Ogden, Utah, from February 1991 through September 1993.  In January 
1993, Forest Service officials verbally offered Mr. Chambers a 
reassignment to Washington, DC, in April/May 1993.  On January 22, 
1993, however, USDA placed a department-wide freeze on transfers until 
further notice.  On April 19, 1993, the Deputy Chief for 
Administration, Forest Service, sent a request to the Director of 
Personnel, USDA, for an exception to the freeze to allow several 
positions in the Forest Service, including that of Mr. Chambers, to 
meet urgent needs.  

On July 9, 1993, the Chief of the Forest Service formally requested an 
exception to the freeze for Mr. Chambers in a decision memorandum for 
the Secretary of Agriculture.  The justification was that Mr. Chambers 
had been selected to fill a vacancy as Assistant Director, Fire and 
Aviation Management, and that it was critical to fill the vacancy 
immediately.  A second decision memorandum was submitted on November 
19, 1993, requesting the transfer of Mr. Chambers.  Thus, the record 
shows that from April 1993 to December 1993, the Forest Service 
pursued its request for an exception to allow Mr. Chambers to change 
duty stations.  
On December 5, 1993, USDA granted final approval for Mr. Chambers to 
transfer and a Travel Authorization for that purpose was issued on 
December 22, 1993.  The estimated dates of travel were shown to be 
September 21-28, 1993.

While Mr. Chambers was awaiting written orders, the record shows that 
he relied on the stated intention of the Forest Service to transfer 
him.  On June 11, 1993, Mr. Chambers put his home in Utah on the real 
estate market, and he entered into a sales agreement on June 17, 1993, 
with a possession date of September 1, 1993.  The final settlement 
date was September 15, 1993.  In addition, he signed a sales contract 
on August 16, 1993, to purchase a residence in the Washington, DC, 
metropolitan area.  The settlement date of that purchase was September 
23, 1993.

On September 17, 1993, Mr. Chambers began a detail from Ogden, Utah, 
to Laramie, Wyoming; York, Nebraska; Galesburg, Illinois; and 
Zanesville, Ohio, with a scheduled return to Ogden, Utah.  According 
to the travel authorization dated October 5, 1993, the travel was 
authorized to begin on September 17, 1993, and end on September 21, 
1993.  Instead of returning to Ogden, however, Mr. Chambers traveled 
to Washington, DC, from Ohio on September 21, 1993, and later 
submitted a voucher for reimbursement of expenses incurred in 
Washington, DC, on September 27, 28, and 30, 1993.  Mr. Chambers was 
on leave September 22-24, 1993.  Apparently, Mr. Chambers was detailed 
to Forest Service headquarters in Washington, DC, on September 27, 
1993, to fill the vacant position there pending approval of his 
transfer.

OPINION  

As a general rule, administrative authorization is a necessary 
condition to the government assuming the relocation expenses of a 
transferred employee.  54 Comp. Gen. 993 (1975).  Ordinarily, the 
authorization is evidenced by formal written travel orders issued 
prior to the performance of the travel.  Nevertheless, we have held 
that reimbursement of expenses incurred prior to the issuance of 
travel orders may be allowed if the subsequently issued travel orders 
authorize relocation expenses on the basis of a previously existing 
administrative intention to transfer the employee evident at the time 
the expenses were incurred.  Caridad A. Smith, B-204480, June 8, 1982.  
What would constitute a clear intention to transfer an employee 
depends on the specific circumstances of each case.  48 Comp. Gen. 
395, 396 (1968); James H. Hogan, B-191912, Apr. 5, 1979.

We have held in past decisions that verbal notification of a tentative 
selection for a position may constitute a clear intention to transfer 
an employee.  Gerald S. Beasley, B-196208, Feb. 28, 1980, and cases 
cited.  We have also found that the requisite administrative intention 
exists where agency officials orally advise the employee that his 
transfer is contingent on the occurrence of a particular event.  John 
J. Fischer, B-188366, Jan. 6, 1978.

In this case, Mr. Chambers was notified in January 1993 that he would 
be transferred to Washington, DC.  Furthermore, the record shows that 
Forest Service officials actively pursued a waiver of the transfer 
restrictions from April 1993 to December 1993.  These actions clearly 
show an administrative intention on the part of the agency to transfer 
Mr. Chambers to Washington, DC, contingent only upon the granting of 
an exception to the department-wide freeze on transfers.  Since Mr. 
Chambers incurred his real estate and other relocation expenses only 
after being advised by Forest Service officials that he would be 
transferred, albeit contingent upon approval of the exception, we 
believe that the test stated above has been complied with and Mr. 
Chambers may be reimbursed for allowable relocation and real estate 
expenses.

The certifying officer also questions whether Mr. Chambers may be 
reimbursed for expenses incurred during his temporary duty travel in 
September 1993 since the travel authorization was issued after 
completion of his trip, and his final destination, i.e., Washington, 
DC, was not authorized by the orders.

The general rule is that travel allowances vest as and when travel is 
performed under competent orders, and that, in general, such orders 
may not be revoked or modified retroactively so as to increase or 
decrease rights and benefits.  We have recognized an exception to the 
above rule when orders may be corrected or completed retroactively to 
show the original intent.  Dr. Sigmund Fritz, 55 Comp. Gen. 1241 
(1976).  In addition, we have permitted agency approval of travel by 
administrative action after the fact.  See B-198062, June 23, 1981, 
citing B-197960, Aug. 6, 1980.

Here, the Forest Service's issuance of the orders on October 5, 1993, 
after the travel was completed appears to us to be satisfactory 
authority for reimbursement of authorized travel to the designated 
temporary duty locations.  However, travel expenses claimed by Mr. 
Chambers for his travel to Washington, DC, after his detail ended were 
not authorized by those orders.

Apparently, Mr. Chambers traveled to Washington, DC, on September 21, 
1993, following his temporary duty assignment in Ohio, to begin a 
detail to the Forest Service's national office on September 27, 1993.  
Since the transfer orders dated December 22, 1993, authorized Mr. and 
Mrs. Chambers to travel to Washington, DC, during September 21-28, 
1993, his travel expenses to Washington, DC, during that period may be 
reimbursed.  See B-198062 and B-197960, supra.

Additionally, Mr. Chambers submitted three vouchers relating to his 
change of station for travel by his wife, temporary quarters occupancy 
for 4 days for himself and his wife, and shipment of household goods.  
Since the travel authorization for relocation travel to Washington, 
DC, dated December 22, 1993, authorized spousal travel, shipment of 
household goods, and up to 60 days' temporary quarters, we see no 
objection to payment of the three vouchers to the extent proper and 
allowable under the Federal Travel Regulation, 41 C.F.R. Chapter 302 
(1995), provided there is no duplication of payments made for 
temporary duty travel as authorized above.

/s/Seymour Efros
forRobert P. Murphy
General Counsel