In the Matter of BETSAIDA RAMIREZ

June 24, 2010

CBCA 1923-RELO

In the Matter of BETSAIDA RAMIREZ

Betsaida Ramirez, Portland, ME, Claimant.

Erin R. Guiffre, Office of the General Counsel, Social Security Administration,

Baltimore, MD, appearing for Social Security Administration.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

The Social Security Administration (SSA) transferred Betsaida Ramirez from

Washington State to Maine in August 2009. The move did not go as smoothly as Ms.

Ramirez expected. In filing this case with the Board, she asked that we direct SSA to (a)

extend her eligibility for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) beyond the 120

days the agency allowed and (b) reimburse her for the cost of renting a car in Maine for more

than a month. In responding to SSA’s comments, Ms. Ramirez has reiterated the initial

request and additionally said that she “want[s] [her] record cleared and the suspension

removed and [her] week’s salary reinstated” and “want[s] to [sic] somebody to acknowledge

that this program [making use of a relocation services contractor] doesn’t work as great as

they pawn it off as, I want an apology, I want someone to say they are sorry and they were

wrong.”

We deny the claims for TQSE and the cost of the rental car. We have no authority to

consider the additional requests.

CBCA 1923-RELO

2

Background

Before Ms. Ramirez left Washington State, SSA provided her with a relocation

manual prepared by the agency, and SSA’s relocation services contractor, Prudential

Relocation, Inc., provided her with its own “Transferring Employee Guide.” Both of these

manuals contained cautions about some of the sorts of situations she might -- and eventually

did -- encounter. Each manual noted that the maximum length of time for which an

employee could be eligible was 120 days. The Prudential guide also warned about the

predicament facing sellers of houses:

[T]he real estate markets are readjusting to serious dislocations that occurred

in 2008. Home prices are falling, properties are staying on the market longer,

and inventories of existing and new-construction homes are at the highest level

in years. This makes selling a home daunting, at best.

This manual also told her that Prudential would buy her home, if she wished, but that:

The appraised value offer that Prudential presents -- commonly termed the

“buy-out” offer -- may be substantially lower than sales offers you may receive

by listing your home. That is because offers from interested buyers who may

form an emotional attachment to your home are usually your best chance at

attaining top dollar for your home. Prudential’s buy-out offer originates from

an analysis of comparable homes, but it is also adjusted by many elements

including the property’s marketing challenges and market forecasts as well as

property defects that are uncovered during the inspection process.

With regard to selling the house to Prudential, the SSA manual warned:

You Always Have An Alternative: If you are not happy with your buy-out

offer, terminate the home sale program (SSA will absorb the costs of the

program), sell the home on your own, and submit a claim for your expenses as

outlined under the previous section “Selling Your Home On Your Own.”

Ms. Ramirez decided to place the sale of her Washington home in Prudential’s hands.

The home did not sell as quickly as she would have preferred, however. On September 9,

Prudential offered to purchase it at a price which was the average of three appraised

valuations. Five weeks later, in mid-October, she and her husband accepted this offer.

Settlement occurred in early November. Shortly thereafter, Prudential received an offer from

a third party to buy the house, and Prudential sold it to that party. The sales price was 5%

CBCA 1923-RELO

3

more than Prudential had paid Ms. Ramirez and her husband -- but 16% less than their

original asking price and 7% less than their final asking price.

Meanwhile, Ms. Ramirez and her husband entered into a contract to buy a house in

Maine, contingent on their securing financing. At that time, the house in Washington had

not yet been sold. The Ramirezes were told that they were denied financing because their

debt-to-income ratio was excessive. Ultimately, they purchased a house in Maine in January

2010. More than 120 days passed between Ms. Ramirez’ arrival in Maine and the date on

which she and her family moved into their new house. SSA paid her for 120 days of TQSE.

The agency refused to pay for any additional days, though it recognizes that the family

resided in temporary quarters for that extra time.

Ms. Ramirez traveled from Washington to Maine by air. SSA shipped her car from

one state to the other. While she was waiting for the car to arrive, she rented a vehicle which

she used for local transportation. She paid for the rental, and the agency has refused to

reimburse her for it.

In May 2010, SSA suspended Ms. Ramirez for five calendar days as a result of her

failure to pay in a timely fashion a balance owed on her government-issued credit card.

Discussion

The two issues Ms. Ramirez initially raised are resolved easily by reference to statute

and regulation. Both 5 U.S.C. § 5724a(c) (2006) and 41 CFR 302-6.104 (2009) limit the

length of time of eligibility for TQSE to 120 days. The statute also says that “compelling

reasons for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters” -- Ms. Ramirez’ justification for

additional time -- are necessary to extend the period of eligibility beyond sixty days. 5

U.S.C. § 5724a(c)(2). The regulation emphasizes that “[u]nder no circumstances may [an

employee] be authorized reimbursement for actual TQSE for more than a total of 120

consecutive days.” 41 CFR 302-6.104. Even if SSA wanted to extend Ms. Ramirez’

eligibility, it could not do so.

Similarly, regulation prohibits SSA from paying for Ms. Ramirez’ rental car. Local

transportation expenses incurred by a transferred employee may not be reimbursed by an

agency unless they pertain to the performance of official business. 41 CFR 302-6.18. Ms.

Ramirez says that she used the rental car not for the performance of official business, but

rather, to commute to and from work, and to drive her daughter to and from school. We have

no doubt that Ms. Ramirez needed local transportation in Maine before her vehicle arrived

from Washington, and renting a car may well have been the most economical way to secure

that transportation (as Ms. Ramirez alleges). Regardless, however, reimbursement of the cost

CBCA 1923-RELO

4

of renting a car is not one of the benefits provided by the Federal Government to employees

it transfers from one duty station to another. This point has been enunciated in many

decisions, including the following which are cited by SSA: Roylinne Wada, GSBCA

16380-RELO, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,622; Patrick O. Walsh, GSBCA 16243-RELO, 04-1 BCA

¶ 32,520 (2003); Michael L. Noll, GSBCA 15136-RELO, 00-1 BCA ¶ 30,887; Jacqueline

Williams, GSBCA 15026-RELO, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,538; and Carrie L. McWilliams, GSBCA

15028-RELO, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,497. Though the point may not have been stated in SSA’s

relocation manual, the law is clear.

Ms. Ramirez is disappointed, with regard to these matters and others that arose in her

move across the country, because she “believe[d] your agency will take care of one of their

own,” and SSA did not do so according to her standards. Her story should be a cautionary

tale for others: Agencies absorb some of the costs employees incur in moving -- but only

those costs that they are required, or agree as authorized, to absorb. Moving is expensive,

and although many relocation benefits are provided by statute and regulation, some costs will

inevitably be borne by employees.

We can go no further in addressing Ms. Ramirez’ requests. The Board is authorized

to settle claims by federal civilian employees involving expenses incurred for official travel

and transportation, and for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station.

31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(3). We have no authority to investigate whether a relocation services

contractor performed its duties efficiently and politely, or to determine whether the relocation

services program is working well. Thus, we do not opine on whether Prudential or Ms.

Ramirez is correct in alleging that the other behaved badly while the former was engaged to

sell the latter’s house in Washington. We can only note that the contractor cautioned the

employee that selling her house could be difficult and its buy-out offer might not be for as

much money as a direct sale would obtain, and that despite the agency’s advice that the

employee was under no obligation to accept such an offer, the employee accepted it.

We have no authority, either, to investigate whether SSA fairly suspended Ms.

Ramirez for failing to pay in a timely fashion a balance owed on her government-issued

credit card, and we cannot direct the agency to pay her the five days’ salary it withheld. We

make no findings as to whether, as to the transaction involving the house in Washington or

the suspension, SSA or its contractor did anything wrong or ought to make an apology.

_________________________

STEPHEN M. DANIELS

Board Judge