claimant’s household goods (HHG) at his old CONUS duty station, the NGA argues that

CBCA 7621-RELO

2

claimant’s household goods (HHG) at his old CONUS duty station, the NGA argues that

claimant’s dependents, had they timely returned to the CONUS PDS, could have and should

have retrieved the HHG from NTS within a reasonable time after claimant’s CONUS

transfer. Because they did not, the NGA argues, claimant is now financially responsible for

any continuing HHG NTS costs.

Claimant asks the Board to find that the extension of time for using relocation benefits

following the employee’s military duty applies equally to him and to his dependents and,

further, that his HHG NTS entitlement should continue until after he is released from active

duty and has relocated back to his CONUS duty station. For the reasons discussed below,

we agree with claimant.

Background

In August 2015, claimant transferred from a PDS in St. Louis, Missouri, to a threeyear OCONUS tour of duty in Vicenza, Italy. Claimant’s travel authorization indicates that,

as part of that permanent change of station (PCS), claimant signed a transportation or service

agreement pursuant to which, at the end of his Vicenza tour of duty, claimant would be

entitled to transportation for himself and his dependents back to St. Louis as long as he

completed his time obligation at his OCONUS post.

Claimant’s travel authorization for his transfer provided for the “concurrent” travel

of claimant, his wife, and his children to and from Vicenza. It also authorized, among other

things, reimbursement for NTS of his family’s HHG at his original duty station in St. Louis,

Missouri, during his tour of duty in Vicenza. Based upon the travel authorization, claimant

and his family placed their HHG into NTS in St. Louis before they departed for Italy.

In 2017 and 2020, the NGA extended claimant’s OCONUS tour of duty, both times

authorizing entitlement to continued HHG NTS in St. Louis while claimant remained in Italy.

With the 2020 extension, claimant’s estimated CONUS return date was August 13, 2021.

In March 2021, claimant applied for and received an order from the United States

Army to report for active military duty in Vicenza, Italy, with a report date of July 12, 2021.

After learning of that military order, the NGA issued a travel order requiring claimant

to relocate from Vicenza back to St. Louis effective July 11, 2021, the day before claimant

was to report for military duty. Subsequently, in an email dated June 14, 2021, an NGA

Branch Chief for Worklife and Relocation Services informed claimant that, although

provisions in the federal travel regulations dealing with military furloughs expand the normal

one-year deadline that employees otherwise have to complete a duty station transfer, the

CBCA 7621-RELO

3

expanded period of time does not apply to claimant’s dependents, who would still have to

return to St. Louis within one year of the July 11, 2021, transfer date:

*

You: You will have one-year from the date of your NGA PCS orders

to complete your PCS entitlement. Because you are entering military service,

any time spent in military service does not count towards that one year

deadline. For example, assuming you begin your military orders the day after

your NGA orders end, you will have approximately 364 days from the date you

complete your military orders to execute your PCS entitlements. This deadline

is not the same as your reporting date back to [your St. Louis duty station]

once you complete your military orders. While you are on military orders,

your status will be [leave-without-pay-United-States]. Once you complete

your military orders, you will have 90-days to notify Career Services of your

intent to return to your NGA position. Career Services will then assist you [in]

find[ing] a new position and negotiate a start date. Career Services will

consider your HHG shipment when negotiating a start date. The negotiated

start date will most likely be before your deadline on your PCS entitlement.

*

Your dependents: Once we issue orders with a reporting date of 11 July

2021, your dependents will have one-years [sic] to execute the PCS

entitlement. Your family does not benefit from the extension due to military

service as you do. They will be required to execute their PCS entitlement by

11 July 2022.

Claimant began his military duty, which was supposed to last one year, on July 12,

2021. Neither claimant nor his family returned to St. Louis before claimant reported for

military duty. In June 2022, the Army extended claimant’s military duty through July 11,

2023. Subsequently, by email dated June 22, 2022, the NGA Branch Chief for Worklife and

Relocation Services provided claimant with what she described as “a reminder regarding

[claimant’s] family status for the PCS orders [that claimant was] issued with a reporting date

of 12 July 2021.” She indicated by email that “[y]our dependents have one-years [sic] to

execute the PCS entitlement” and that “[y]our family does not benefit from the extension due

to military service as you do. They will be required to execute their PCS entitlement by 11

July 2022 or expenses cannot be reimbursed.” Claimant’s family did not return to St. Louis.

On November 16, 2022, claimant received notice that his entitlement to HHG NTS

in St. Louis had ended on September 30, 2022. In response to claimant’s inquiries, a human

resource officer for the NGA informed claimant that his PCS orders “returned you to

CONUS (St. Louis) in July of 2021” and that “[y]ou are not eligible for NTS and [continued

storage] would be at your expense.” On March 23, 2023, the Army provided claimant with

CBCA 7621-RELO

4

a pay adjustment authorization notice, indicating that, based upon information provided by

the NGA, he “owes the government” a total of $2061.90 “for [NTS] beyond his authorized

entitlement.” In the notice, it was reported that claimant “left [NGA] in Italy on 11 July 2021

and was called to active duty,” that claimant “has 6360 lbs. in NTS,” and that he “owes the

government [$142.20 per month] for storage period 11 Oct [2021] to 31 Dec 2023” for a total

of $2061.90.

Claimant submitted his challenge to the NGA’s disposition of his claims to the Board

on December 23, 2022, complaining about the NGA’s direction that his dependents had

forfeited their relocation benefits for their return to St. Louis and about charges that he is

now incurring for continuing NTS. As of the date of this decision, claimant is still on active

duty in Vicenza and, since July 2021, has been in a leave-without-pay status with the NGA.

Discussion

The Board’s Authority to Resolve the Claims

Claimant has two claims before us. First, claimant argues that the NGA’s notice that

his dependents have waived their relocation benefits misinterprets the relevant Federal Travel

Regulation (FTR) and Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) provisions and, further, violates the

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA),

38 U.S.C. §§ 4301–4335 (2018). Second, claimant argues that the NGA’s refusal to continue

NTS payments during his active military duty misinterprets the FTR and, again, violates

USERRA as well as the NGA’s own policy.

Before considering these claims, we first address our review authority. Our delegation

of authority from the Administrator of General Services allows us to “settle claims involving

expenses incurred by Federal civilian employees for official travel and transportation, and

for relocation expenses incident to transfers of official duty station.” 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(3)

(2018). Because the NGA has already billed claimant for costs associated with his HHG

NTS, there is no question that we have authority to address that claim. The NGA, though,

argues that we lack authority to consider claimant’s first claim—the claim involving the

dependents’ not-yet-incurred relocation expenses—because “[c]laimant has conceded he has

not yet suffered any harm or damages in this issue” and therefore “has failed to state a claim

and is not entitled to relief.” Agency’s Response (Jan. 27, 2023) at 3.

In the past, we have interpreted our authority in considering travel and relocation

claims as being limited to claims involving, as the statute says, “expenses incurred” for travel

or relocation. Bradley A. O’Neil, CBCA 6701-RELO, 20-1 BCA ¶ 37,687, at 182,976; see

John R. Durant, GSBCA 15726-TRAV, 02-1 ¶ 31,827, at 157,260 (A claim must “be one

CBCA 7621-RELO

5

for ‘expenses incurred’ by the employee.”); Charles W. Adams, GSBCA 15052-TRAV, 1999

WL 771056 (Sept. 28, 1999) (Where “claimant has not filed a claim for the travel expense

of business-class air travel because he has not yet incurred the expense,” the claim is

“premature.”). Nevertheless, when relocation benefits are involved, we have recognized an

exception where a “claimant has a definite and concrete intent to incur relocation expenses

. . . but the agency’s refusal to extend the time has frustrated any possibility of

reimbursement.” George R. Saulsbery, GSBCA 16027-RELO, 03-1 BCA ¶ 32,179, at

170,900; see Jorge J. Martinez, CBCA 2265-RELO, 11-1 BCA ¶ 34,704, at 159,084; Julio

Gagot-Mangual, GSBCA 16117-TRAV, 04-1 BCA ¶ 32,467, at 160,587 (2003). Contrary

to the NGA’s argument, claimant falls within that exception here.1 We review both of

claimant’s claims below.

Dependents’ Entitlement to Relocation Benefits

An employee’s “effective transfer . . . date” is “the date on which [the employee]

report[s] for duty at [the employee’s] new . . . official station.” FTR 302-2.4 (41 CFR

302-2.4 (2015)).2 Here, the NGA told claimant that he was to report for duty at his CONUS

PDS on July 11, 2021. The FTR advises that the transferred employee and his family have

one year from the effective transfer date to complete all aspects of the relocation:

When must I complete all aspects [of] my relocation?

1

Even if claimant had not identified his dependents’ “definite and concrete

intent” to incur relocation expenses, in this particular case, we cannot fully resolve the

NGA’s defenses to claimant’s second claim (the NTS claim) if we do not address claimant’s

first claim. The NGA has argued that it was entitled to stop paying claimant’s NTS costs

because, had claimant’s dependents returned to the CONUS duty station when they should

have (that is, within a reasonable time after claimant was transferred there effective July 11,

2021), the dependents would have retrieved the HHG from NTS, which would have

precluded any continued incurrence of NTS costs. The validity of the NGA’s defense to

claimant’s second claim necessarily depends on the Board’s resolution of claimant’s first

claim, rendering resolution of the first claim necessary.

2

Because claimant executed the service agreement for his OCONUS tour of duty

in 2015, and because his satisfaction of his obligations under that agreement provides the

basis of his current return rights, see Kenneth J. Dexter, CBCA 3130-RELO, 13 BCA

¶ 35,236, at 172,998, we cite to and rely upon the 2015 version of the FTR in this decision.

CBCA 7621-RELO

6

You and your immediate family member(s) must complete all aspects of your

relocation within one year from the effective date of your transfer . . . , except

as provided in § 302-2.10 or § 302-2.11.

Id. 302-2.9. Were we to apply that FTR provision in isolation, claimant and his dependents

would be obligated to complete relocation by July 10, 2022, one year after claimant’s July 11,

2021, CONUS civil service reporting date.

Another FTR provision, however, modifies that time limit. Pursuant to FTR 302-2.10,

if a transferring employee is furloughed to perform active military duty, the deadline for

completing relocation is extended:

If I am furloughed to perform active military duty, will I have to complete all

aspects of the relocation within the time limitation?

No, if you are furloughed to perform active military duty, the 1-year period to

complete all aspects of relocation is exclusive of time spent on furlough for

active military service.

41 CFR 302-2.10. Claimant has been on military furlough since July 2021.3

The NGA does not dispute that claimant’s one-year time limit for completing

relocation is deferred while he is on his current military duty. It argues, however, that this

extension does not apply to claimant’s family. It notes that, although FTR 302-2.9 sets a oneyear deadline on relocation benefits for “[y]ou and your family member(s),” the language in

FTR 302-2.10 providing an extension for military duty only references the employee, not the

employee’s dependents. That difference in language, the NGA argues, indicates that

dependents are purposely excluded from the FTR 302-2.10 military duty extension.

The NGA’s argument is inconsistent with the applicable JTR provisions that interpret

and apply the FTR.4 Chapter 5, section 3, of the August 2015 version of the JTR “prescribes

3

The NGA has recorded claimant as being in a leave-without-pay status, but,

in the circumstances here, that is the same as military furlough. See, e.g., 38 U.S.C.

§ 4316(b)(1)(A); William Arnold Kristapovich, CBCA 2390-RELO, 11-2 BCA ¶ 34,826, at

171,360; 71 Comp. Gen. 513, 515-16 (1992); 5 CFR 353.106(a).

4

In support of its arguments, the NGA cites to the JTR issued on January 1,

2023, arguing that JTR 053712 (Jan. 2023), a portion of which supplements FTR 302-2.10,

should be interpreted as limiting extensions of relocation benefits to the employee on military

CBCA 7621-RELO

7

a dependent’s travel and transportation allowances incident to a PCS move.” JTR 5576

(Aug. 2015). JTR 5584, titled “Time Limitation,” is one of the subsections within chapter 5,

section 3. Consistent with FTR 302-2.9 and -2.10, it provides that, although “[d]ependent

travel must be completed within 1 year from the effective date of transfer,” JTR 5584-A.2,

“[f]or an employee who enters active military duty at any time before the 1-year period ends,

the time spent in military service is not included in the 1 year.” Id. 5584-A.3. To the extent

that the NGA might argue that the sentence at JTR 5584-A.3 does not expressly mention

“dependents” of the employee who is on military duty, that subsection is a part of JTR

chapter 5, section 3, which, as noted above, addresses “a dependent’s travel and

transportation allowances.” Id. 5576. The NGA’s argument creating separate time

limitations for the employee on military duty, on one hand, and his dependents, on the other,

directly conflicts with JTR 5584-A.3. Accordingly, under JTR 5584-A.3, any extension on

relocation benefits that applies to the employee because of military furlough also applies to

the dependents.5 The NGA’s argument to the contrary is wrong. Claimant’s dependents

have not forfeited their return-to-CONUS relocation benefits.6

duty and excluding dependents. However we might interpret JTR 053712, it does not apply

to the claim here. The version of the JTR that governs a claimant’s right to OCONUS return

relocation benefits, which is enforceable because of claimant’s compliance with the

transportation or service agreement that claimant originally executed, is the one that was in

effect when claimant’s OCONUS tour of duty began. Kenneth J. Dexter, CBCA 3130RELO, 13 BCA ¶ 35,236, at 172,998; see Xavier F. Monroy, CBCA 5676-RELO, 17-1 BCA

¶ 36,855, at 179,584 (Return rights “are created when the employee signs the initial

agreement, and they vest when the employee fulfills his or her obligations under the initial

agreement.” (internal citation omitted)). Here, claimant signed his service agreement and

began his tour of duty in Italy in August 2015. Accordingly, we look to the August 2015

version of the JTR to determine what rights claimant and his dependents have to return

relocation expenses at the end of that OCONUS tour, rather than the JTR that was in effect

when the NGA filed its briefing with the Board.

5

Even if we were to apply the JTR in effect in July 2021, when claimant was

supposed to report to his St. Louis PDS before beginning military duty, or the JTR issued on

January 1, 2023, to which the NGA refers, we see nothing in either version of JTR 053712

that shows an intent to modify the dependent relocation travel entitlements set forth in JTR

5584 (Aug. 2015).

6

In light of this disposition, we need not evaluate claimant’s USERRA argument

or the NGA’s argument that we lack authority to consider the effect of USERRA on

claimant’s entitlements.

CBCA 7621-RELO

8

Claimant’s Entitlement to Continued NTS

The FTR defines NTS, or “extended storage,” as “[s]torage of household goods while

an employee is assigned to an official station or post of duty to which he/she is not authorized

to take or unable to use the household goods or is authorized in the public interest.” 41 CFR

300-3.1. FTR 302-8.203 authorizes agencies to cover NTS costs throughout the duration of

a transferred employee’s OCONUS assignment as follows:

Time limitations for extended storage of your HHG will be determined by your

agency as follows:

(a)

For the duration of the OCONUS assignment plus 30 days prior to the

time the tour begins and plus 60 days after the tour is completed;

(b)

Extensions may be allowed for subsequent service or tours of duty at

the same or other overseas stations if you continue to be eligible as set forth

in § 302-8.200; and

(c)

When eligibility ceases, storage at Government expense may continue

until the beginning of the second month after the month in which your tour at

the official station OCONUS terminates, unless to avoid inequity your agency

extends the period.

Id. 302-8.203. The NGA’s supplement to the FTR eliminates any discretion that the agency

might otherwise have for extending NTS, stating that “[n]on-temporary storage of HHG will

be authorized for the length of the OCONUS tour,” inclusive of extensions. Claim

Attachment 12.

The NGA does not appear to dispute that FTR 302-2.10’s military furlough time

extension applies to claimant’s NTS (even though FTR 302-2.10 does not expressly mention

FTR 302-8.203(a)’s sixty-day deadline for ending NTS after the employee’s return to the

original PDS) or that claimant was granted and entitled to NTS. The NGA’s sole argument

in support of its decision to stop paying claimant’s NTS is that, had claimant’s dependents

timely returned to St. Louis near claimant’s July 11, 2021, St. Louis PDS report date, “it is

more likely than not Claimant would not have incurred NTS fees” because his family would

have removed the HHG from NTS at that time. Agency’s Response at 7. The NGA notes,

though, that it “is willing to work with Claimant on continued agency payment of NTS costs

while he is on military orders provided Claimant provides clear notice that NTS costs would

continue to be incurred after the return PCS and relocation of his dependents consistent with

PCS orders.” Id.

CBCA 7621-RELO

9

As previously discussed, claimant’s family is entitled to the same relocation extension

as claimant as a result of claimant’s military duty. Accordingly, the family is not required

to return to St. Louis while claimant is on military duty, undercutting the rationale of the

NGA’s sole defense to claimant’s NTS challenge. Because the NGA has raised no other

bases for challenging this claim, claimant is entitled to reimbursement of the costs he has

incurred for his NTS.

Decision

The claim is granted.

Harold D. Lester, Jr.

HAROLD D. LESTER, JR.

Board Judge