Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _________________ April 7, 2000 _________________ GSBCA 15138-RELO In the Matter of MARION L. LADD Marion L. Ladd, Aurora, CO, Claimant. Michael C. Gidos, Comptroller, National Security Agency, Fort George G. Meade, MD, appearing for Department of Defense. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant, an employee of the National Security Agency, asks that we review his agency s denial of a claim for reimbursement of certain relocation costs. These costs were encountered in connection with the purchase of a home near the claimant's new permanent duty station. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the agency s denial of the claim. Background In June of 1999, Mr. Marion L. Ladd submitted a claim for reimbursement of certain real estate expenses associated with his purchase of a home located in Aurora, Colorado, near his new permanent duty station. Among the expenses claimed were several which, according to the settlement statement executed by the parties in May 1999, were paid from the seller s funds at settlement. These expenses paid by the seller but for which Mr. Ladd sought reimbursement came to a total of $2996. They included a loan origination fee amounting to $2332, a mortgage closing fee of $125, mortgage document preparation fees amounting to $125, a property transfer fee of $75, recording fees amounting to $67, and title endorsement fees of $272. After reviewing the settlement sheet covering the purchase of Mr. Ladd's new home, the agency advised him that it was prepared to reimburse him for certain expenses shown on the settlement sheet as charged to him as purchaser but that he could not be reimbursed for any charges shown as charged to the seller. Mr. Ladd explains that when he and his wife agreed with the builder in February 1999 to add several items to the contract, the builder had agreed to provide a credit of $3000 to be applied by the purchasers in whatever manner they wished. According to Mr. Ladd, the credit was to be applied towards the purchase of a window treatment, a refrigerator, washer and dryer, kitchen tile upgrade, and an air conditioning unit. Instead, the credit was applied at settlement to pay certain closing costs which normally would have been paid by the purchaser. Mr. Ladd writes: Instead, without our knowledge[,] he paid closing costs that would have and should have been paid by us. This was done underhandedly. I realize this should have been handled at the closing, but considering all the problems that we had with the seller/builder, we didn't expect this type of action. Furthermore, I didn't realize at the time that it would cause such a major problem for me in obtaining reimbursement. The agency has refused to reimburse the costs claim on the ground that it can only reimburse real estate expenses actually incurred by the claimant. Discussion By statute, federal employees transferred from one official station within the United States to another which is also in the United States may be reimbursed for certain expenses which they are "required" to pay in the purchase of a new residence at their new official station. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(d)(1) (Supp. III 1997). The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) reflects the same requirement when it states: To the extent allowable under this part, the Government shall reimburse an employee for expenses required to be paid by him/her . . . for purchase (including construction) of one dwelling at his/her new official station . . . . 41 CFR 302-6.1 (1998) (FTR 302-6.1). The FTR further refines the notion of expenses an employee is "required" to pay in rules governing the reimbursement of employee residence transaction expenses. Rule one states in part: (1) Employee must actually incur the expenses. An employee shall be reimbursed only for expenses actually incurred and paid by the employee or a member of the employee's immediate family. FTR 302-6.1(f)(1). The agency's denial of Mr. Ladd's claim is supported by both statute and regulation. The settlement sheet covering the purchase of claimant's new residence does not indicate that Mr. Ladd was required to pay the closing costs for which he now seeks to be reimbursed. Indeed, the settlement sheet does not indicate that he or any member of his immediate family actually paid these costs. Neither does he claim that the credit was negotiated in order to include the closing costs in the cost of the house -- a stratagem which, if properly documented, can sometimes lead to reimbursement for these costs. See Jacquelyn B. Parish, GSBCA 15085-RELO, 00-1 BCA 30,605. Rather, claimant expressly states that the credit was to be applied against the cost of various fixtures and appliances and that application of it to the closing costs was done underhandedly and without his knowledge. In determining what expenses an employee actually incurred and paid in connection with a housing transaction, the Board looks to the settlement sheet. Nicholas A. Mendaloff, GSBCA 14542-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,983; Harlan C. Thiel, GSBCA 13668-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,710 (1996). Despite Mr. Ladd's complaints as to how the promised credit was handled, we find nothing in the record which would lead us to doubt the reliability of the settlement sheet provided in this case. The sheet bears the signature of Mr. and Mrs. Ladd. Further, from Mr. Ladd's own statement, it would appear that, although he was aware at the time of settlement that the seller planned to apply the $3000 credit to closing costs, he nevertheless elected to do nothing about it since he did not realize at the time that this would create a problem for him in obtaining reimbursement. Finally, the provision in the settlement sheet for the seller's payment of certain closing costs is consistent with a provision in the written agreement signed in February, which added items to the contract between the Ladds and the builder/seller. The record contains a copy of this contract amendment. It expressly provides: "Seller to pay $3000 toward closing cost." In short, given the record before us, we have no reason to doubt the reliability of the settlement sheet which indicates that the closing costs for which Mr. Ladd now seeks reimbursement were not actually paid by him. Accordingly, we affirm the agency's denial of the claim. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge