BNUMBER:  B-261836
DATE:  November 13, 1995
TITLE:  Terry W. Gravatt

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

Matter of:Terry W. Gravatt

File:     B-261836

Date:     November 13, 1995

DIGEST

A Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employee listed his residence 
for sale in anticipation that the base at which he worked would be 
closed and went to settlement on the residence before registering with 
the agency's job placement program.  The agency questions whether the 
employee may be reimbursed real estate expenses for the sale of his 
residence based on an agency regulation allowing reimbursement of real 
estate expenses for employees who are registered in the placement 
program.  The employee may be reimbursed.  Neither the regulation nor 
our decision in Kirk S. Peters, B-249451, Jan. 7, 1993, which is cited 
in the regulation, requires employees to be registered in the 
placement program to receive reimbursement for real estate expenses.  
Rather, employees may be reimbursed real estate expenses incurred 
after an agency has demonstrated a clear administrative intent to 
transfer the employee and the employee is transferred and signs an 
employment agreement.  Although registration in the agency placement 
program is evidence of an intent to transfer, agencies may look to all 
the facts of a particular case to determine whether this intent 
existed.  In this case, the employee was acting on information that 
the base was about to be closed and that an offer to assist him in 
finding another job would be forthcoming.

DECISION

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) requests a decision 
on Mr. Terry W. Gravatt's claim for real estate expenses incident to 
his permanent change-of-station from the Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP), 
Pensacola, Florida, to a similar facility in Jacksonville, Florida.  
We approve payment of the claim.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Gravatt listed his residence for sale on July 15, 1993, knowing 
that there was a strong possibility that the Pensacola NADEP would be 
closed.  The base was on the list of bases to be closed submitted to 
the President by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission, which 
the President formally accepted on July 1, 1993.  Congress confirmed 
the list on September 20, 1993.  On September 22, the Base Commander 
notified the employees of this event through a newsletter and stated 
that he had requested permission to allow the base employees to 
register in the Automated Stopper and Referral System (ARARS), which 
is a Department of Defense (DOD) job placement program that used to be 
known as the Priority Placement Program (PPP).  Meanwhile, employees 
were encouraged to preregister with the ARARS, which Mr. Gravatt did 
on September 23.  The agency approved the Commander's request on 
November 5.

While these actions were taking place, Mr. Gravatt arranged for the 
sale of his residence, which went to settlement on September 24.  He 
also began looking for jobs in the Jacksonville area, before formally 
registering with ARARS.  He states that he applied to the Defense 
Outplacement Referral System and applied to a variety of job openings 
at a NADEP Jacksonville job fair.  Through these efforts, rather than 
through the ARARS, Mr. Gravatt received a job offer at the 
Jacksonville NADEP, which he accepted.  Subsequently, the agency 
issued him travel orders to report there effective November 29, 1993.

At issue is whether Mr. Gravatt's claim complies with a department 
regulation that provides, in relevant part:

     The general rule is that an employee may be reimbursed for real 
     estate expenses incurred before, and in anticipation of, a 
     transfer, if a clearly evident administrative intent to transfer 
     the employee exists at the time the expenses are incurred.  (58 
     Comp. Gen. 208 (1979).  The Comptroller General of the U.S. ruled 
     in B-249451, dated 7 January 1993, that the announcement of a 
     base closure, accompanied by an offer to assist in finding new 
     positions for affected employees, is considered a clearly evident 
     intent to transfer such employees.  Registering an employee in 
     the . . . PPP constitutes an offer to assist in finding a new 
     position.  Employees registered in the PPP or other placement 
     program, who sell their residence in anticipation of a (permanent 
     change-of-station), may be entitled to reimbursement of expenses 
     related to the sale of a residence when transferred to a new 
     (permanent duty station), if otherwise eligible under this 
     Chapter.  Joint Travel Regulation, Vol. 2, C1400(4)(a).

The submission from DFAS recommends approval of Mr. Gravatt's claim on 
the grounds that the command had clearly demonstrated an intention to 
assist the employee to find other employment at the time of the 
closing on his house.  However, the submission questions whether the 
sale of Mr. Gravatt's residence before he formally registered in the 
PPP disqualifies him from reimbursement for those expenses based on 
the regulation quoted above.

OPINION

As we noted in Kirk S. Peters, B-249451, Jan. 7, 1993, which is cited 
in the agency's regulation, the primary statutory requirements for the 
reimbursement of real estate expenses are that the employee be 
"transferred in the interest of the government from one official 
station or agency to another for permanent duty . . ." and that the 
employee agrees in writing to remain in the government service for 12 
months after the transfer.  5 U.S.C.  5724 (1988).  The latter 
requirement is not at issue here.

The requirement that the transfer be in the interest of the government 
ensures that the expenses claimed are attributable to the transfer.  
This determination is not subject to rigid rules, but rather, depends 
on the facts of each particular case.  Caridad A. Smith, B-204480, 
June 8, 1992; Richard E. Fitzgerald, B-186764, March 3, 1977.  
Nonetheless, the general rule stated in the agency's regulation is 
correct:  evidence of a clear administrative intent to transfer an 
employee before any real estate expenses are incurred in most cases 
will be sufficient to establish that the employee incurred the 
expenses incident to the transfer.  Kirk S. Peters, supra.  In making 
this determination, agencies have broad discretion.  Joseph L. White, 
58 Comp. Gen. 208 (1979).

We do not view the language in the agency's regulation regarding 
registration in the PPP as limiting this general rule.  Certainly, 
registration in the PPP is evidence of an administrative intent to 
transfer an employee.  However, neither the regulation nor our 
decision in Kirk S. Peters, supra, states that only employees 
registered in the PPP are eligible for reimbursement for real estate 
expenses or that registration is a requirement for reimbursement.  
Rather, an agency's offer to assist an employee find other employment, 
through the PPP or a similar program, simply is an example of the type 
of evidence that satisfies the general rule stated in the first 
sentence.

In this case, when Mr. Gravatt listed his home for sale, he was acting 
on information that the base likely would be closed and that an offer 
to assist him in finding other employment would be forthcoming.  In 
fact, the agency placed him in another position at another base in a 
matter of a few weeks and issued him travel orders authorizing 
relocation expenses.  Given the closeness in time of the announcement 
of the base closure list, Mr. Gravatt's decision to list his residence 
with a realtor and the agency's subsequent transfer of Mr. Gravatt to 
another base, we agree with the Commanding Officer and DFAS that the 
sale of Mr. Gravatt's residence was incident to his transfer.

Accordingly, his claim may be paid.

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