Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ July 10, 2000 ____________________ GSBCA 15251-RELO In the Matter of GERALD TAYLOR Gerald Taylor, Glen Burnie, MD, Claimant. Michael C. Gidos, Comptroller, National Security Agency, Fort George G. Meade, MD, appearing for National Security Agency. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Gerald Taylor, seeks reimbursement of hotel expenses incurred in connection with his change of employment from the Army Corps of Engineers in Mississippi to the National Security Agency (NSA) in Fort Meade, Maryland. NSA is concerned that it lacks authority to reimburse claimant for temporary lodging upon his arrival in Maryland because he had already rented an apartment and stayed there, without his household goods, for a weekend before moving to the hotel. For the reasons stated below, we find that the agency may reimburse the amount claimed. Background Mr. Taylor transferred to NSA effective January 5, 1998. He had leased an apartment intended for permanent occupancy prior to his move and traveled to Maryland in early January, arriving in the area of his new duty station on Friday, January 2, 1998. At that time, Mr. Taylor discovered that his household goods, which had been scheduled for delivery that evening, had not arrived. The NSA travel office was not open for consultation at that time. Mr. Taylor decided to sleep in the unfurnished apartment over the weekend and call the travel office on Monday. When he talked to the travel office he was advised to occupy temporary quarters until his household goods were located and delivered. Mr Taylor was told that the agency would reimburse him for these expenses. Mr. Taylor occupied temporary quarters until January 12, 1999, when his household goods were finally delivered. When he submitted a voucher for reimbursement, however, his claim was denied based upon chapter 13 of volume 2 of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). The agency forwarded this claim to the Board on behalf of Mr. Taylor. NSA noted that the agency is sympathetic, but has concluded there is no authority to pay the claim. Discussion What constitutes temporary occupancy of quarters depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) provides that In determining whether quarters are temporary, [the agency] should consider factors such as the duration of the lease, movement of household effects into the quarters, the type of quarters, the employee s expressions of intent, attempts to secure a permanent dwelling, and the length of time the employee occupies the quarters. 41 CFR 302-5.305 (1997). The JTR sets forth a similar standard in JTR C13205-B.5. NSA is concerned that it does not have authority to compensate the employee for the days he stayed in a hotel awaiting delivery of his household goods to the empty apartment. NSA s principal concern is that Mr. Taylor had a long-term lease on the apartment and stayed there for three nights, albeit without furnishings, before moving to a hotel to await delivery of his household goods. NSA cites several cases issued by the Comptroller General, the Board s predecessor in deciding employee relocation claims. These cases suggest that eligibility for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) terminates whenever an employee first occupies permanent quarters, notwithstanding the absence of household effects, which may arrive at a later date. E.g., Robert T. Haas, B-243017 (Aug. 6, 1991); Robert A. Kreizenbeck, B-213827 (Apr. 2, 1984). Although Mr. Taylor occupied his permanent quarters for a short time upon arrival in Maryland, the facts and circumstances suggest that he did not intend to commence permanent occupancy at that time. See Thomas P. Simon, GSBCA 15131-RELO, 00-1 BCA 30,792. Claimant camped out in his empty apartment temporarily over the weekend, when he had no means of consulting with NSA about his options. He promptly called the travel office on Monday morning for advice and vacated the apartment when he was counseled to move to a hotel and submit a voucher for reimbursement. He also made an effort to locate the whereabouts of his household furnishings. He did not return to the apartment until the moving van arrived with his household goods. Under these circumstances it is fair to say that Mr. Taylor did not actually move into his permanent quarters. He clearly did not intend to live there without his household goods he simply did so because of the timing of his arrival on Friday evening.[foot #] 1 This is consistent with precedent in which we have held that employees who remain for short periods in their old residences after the furniture and household effects have been removed are eligible for TQSE. See Thomas R. Montgomery, GSBCA 14888-RELO, 99-2 BCA 30,427; Gordon D. Giffin, GSBCA 14425-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,200. In conclusion, the applicable regulations do not preclude reimbursement of the cost of temporary lodging incurred by Mr. Taylor under these facts. NSA has the authority to pay this claim. _________________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 This circumstance distinguishes Mr. Taylor s case from those decided by the Comptroller General. In those cases, the claimants occupied permanent quarters and argued that the initial occupancy should be regarded as temporary for a variety of reasons, including delays in delivery of household goods. In these cases, however, the employees did not move in and then immediately move out they stayed throughout the period when the permanent quarters were less than entirely comfortable. This is more indicative of an intent to enter into permanent occupancy, thus terminating eligibility for TQSE. Mr. Taylor was not willing to rough it and thus did not manifest an intent to occupy these quarters permanently prior to delivery of his furnishings.