Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _____________________________ July 14, 2000 _____________________________ GSBCA 15311-RELO In the Matter of PAUL W. GARD, JR. Paul W. Gard, Jr., Westminster, CO, Claimant. R.J. Dominic, Director, Finance Office/Comptroller, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, Germantown, MD, appearing for Department of Commerce. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. Mr. Paul W. Gard, Jr. asks us to review a claim for moving expenses that his employer, the National Weather Service (NWS), denied. We conclude that NWS correctly decided to deny Mr. Gard's claim. If Mr. Gard's claim accrued in 1990-91, it is barred because Mr. Gard did not file it until more than six years later. If the claim accrued in 1999, Mr. Gard cannot recover because he did not incur his moving expenses incident to a change of duty station. Background In September 1988, NWS announced that it expected to move some of its employees from Denver, Colorado to Boulder, Colorado within the following three or four years, although the exact timing of the move had not yet been determined. Boulder is approximately thirty miles from Denver. Based upon this announcement, Mr. Gard, an employee of NWS in Denver, sold his house near Denver in 1990, and purchased a house closer to Boulder in 1991. In May 1999, NWS changed Mr. Gard's duty station to Boulder. In July 1999, Mr. Gard asked NWS to reimburse him for the expenses he incurred when he moved in 1990-91. Initially, NWS said that it would approve Mr. Gard's request because it considered his move to be incident to his change of duty station. A few months later, however, NWS rescinded that approval. NWS explained that its original approval did not take into account the fact that Mr. Gard had not submitted his claim for reimbursement within six years from the time it accrued, and NWS considered Mr. Gard's claim to be time barred. Later, NWS also explained that it considered the change of duty station from Denver to Boulder to be a short distance transfer, that applicable regulations provide for reimbursing employees for moving expenses incurred in connection with short distance transfers only if the expenses are incurred incident to the change of duty station, and that Mr. Gard did not incur his moving expenses incident to his change of duty station. Mr. Gard says that his claim is not time barred because it did not accrue until 1999 when his duty station became Boulder. Mr. Gard also says that NWS should not be permitted to change its initial determination that his move was incident to his change of duty station. Mr. Gard explains that he moved before his duty station changed because he was afraid that he would have to commute to Boulder if, at the unknown time in the future when his duty station changed, he was not able to sell his house near Denver and purchase a house near Boulder. Discussion If Mr. Gard's claim accrued in 1990-91, it is time barred. The statute that provides us with the authority to settle claims involving relocation expenses states that claims must be received either by GSA or by the agency that conducts the activity from which the claim arises within six years after the claim accrues. 31 U.S.C. 3702(b)(1) (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). Mr. Gard did not present his claim to NWS until 1999, even though he incurred his moving expenses more than six years earlier. If Mr. Gard's claim accrued when he incurred his moving expenses, then his claim is barred because he did not submit the claim until more than six years later. If Mr. Gard's claim accrued in 1999, it is not time barred, but NWS correctly determined that the claim cannot be paid. Generally, when an agency transfers an employee in the interest of the Government from one permanent duty station to another, the agency will reimburse the employee for expenses he incurs in connection with a move to the new duty station. 5 U.S.C. 5724a (1994 & Supp. IV 1998). The purpose of the statute is "to help pay the cost of moving to the new place of employment." The statute is designed to authorize payment of expenses "incident to transfer from the old to the new station" so that "employees will not have to incur financial losses when transferred at the request of the Government." S. Rep. No. 89-1357, at 2-4 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2565-67. The Federal Travel Regulation expressly requires that, in the case of a short distance transfer, the agency must determine that an employee's move was incident to the change of duty station in order for the agency to reimburse the employee's moving expenses. 41 CFR 302- 1.7 (1999). Based upon the purpose and design of the statute, an employee who is transferred more than a short distance must also establish that he incurred moving expenses incident to the change of duty station in order to be reimbursed for those expenses. Bruce M.. Foucart, GSBCA 14540-RELO, 99-1 BCA 30,201; Mrs. Jack Kimbrough, GSBCA 13908-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,041. Regardless of whether Mr. Gard's change of station was a short distance transfer, we agree with NWS that he did not incur his moving expenses incident to his change of duty station to Boulder, and so he cannot be reimbursed for those expenses. Mr. Gard's move was not contingent upon his change of duty station, because the change of station did not occur until years after he moved. When Mr. Gard's duty station was changed, he did not sell one house and purchase another as the result of the change. Instead, Mr. Gard moved before his duty station changed because he was afraid that if he was eventually assigned to Boulder, he would have to commute from Denver if he was unable to sell his Denver house and purchase a house closer to Boulder. Although Mr. Gard's move and the resulting expenses were related to his speculation that he might eventually work in Boulder and his desire to avoid commuting to Boulder, they were not incident to the change of station itself. Because Mr. Gard did not incur his moving expenses incident to his change of duty station from Denver to Boulder, NWS correctly determined that it cannot reimburse him for those expenses. Decision The claim is denied. __________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge