In the Matter of HOLLIE P.

February 19, 2025

CBCA 8208-RELO

In the Matter of HOLLIE P.

Hollie P., Claimant.

Ilona M. Keller, Human Resources Specialist, Civilian Personnel Directorate,

Department of the Army, APO Area Europe, appearing for Department of the Army.

SULLIVAN, Board Judge.

As part of a relocation back to the United States following an overseas assignment,

claimant, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army (Army), requested four days

of temporary quarters subsistence allowance (TQSA) to overlap with the last four days of

living quarters allowance (LQA). The Army denied the claim, finding that the employee’s

lease did not require a stringent cleaning of the apartment which would have required her to

vacate prior to the end of the lease. We deny the claim.

Background

Claimant received orders to relocate back to an assignment in the United States after

having been assigned to work in London, England, for several years. While in England,

claimant received a LQA, as described in the Department of State Standardized Regulations

(DSSR), for the “annual cost of suitable, adequate, living quarters” for claimant and her

family. Claimant received LQA funds through April 26, 2024, the date on which her lease

ended.

In anticipation of her relocation, claimant arranged for her household goods to be

picked up on April 18. Claimant then took leave with her family until April 23, when she

returned to her housing to finish removing items and cleaning and painting to restore the

CBCA 8208-RELO

2

premises to the condition in which she received it. Claimant’s lease required that return the

premises “in a clean and tidy condition and in good order (fair wear and tear excepted).”

Claimant undertook these efforts April 23 to 26, 2024.

When arranging for her relocation, claimant learned that she could request up to five

days of overlap for TQSA and LQA. She requested and received authorization from her

supervisor for this overlap April 23 to 26, 2024. According to claimant, she was not

informed that she needed to obtain approval from any other entity or that she would not

qualify for the overlapping allowances based upon the facts of her relocation.

Upon arriving in the United States, claimant submitted her request for reimbursement

of TQSA for two periods—April 23 to 26 and April 27 to May 2, 2024. By memorandum

dated June 19, 2024, the Director of the Civilian Personnel Division, United States Army

Europe and Africa, denied claimant’s request for the four days of TQSA for April 23 to 26,

finding that claimant’s goods had already been removed before the dates requested and that

there was “no heavy/stringent cleaning requirement imposed on the tenant other than what

would be normally expected when vacating quarters.” Claimant’s request for TQSA

reimbursement for April 27 to May 2, 2024, was put on hold until claimant could seek further

review of the Army’s determination.

Discussion

Agencies are authorized to provide TQSA for employees when relocating to or from

an overseas duty assignment by the Overseas Differentials and Allowances Act, 5 U.S.C.

§§ 5921-5928 (2018), and the implementing regulations found in the DSSR. The DSSR

provides that employees may receive TQSA “for a period not to exceed [thirty] days

immediately preceding final departure from the post subsequent to the necessary vacating of

residence quarters.” DSSR 121.b. Payment of TQSA commences on the date that the

employee vacates the permanent housing quarters, unless the head of the agency or a

designee determines that “up to five days are required for payment of both the [LQA] and

[TQSA] because the employee must necessarily vacate permanent residence quarters in order

to comply with stringent lease requirements for cleaning and repair or while movers are there

preparing the employee’s household effects for shipment.” DSSR 124.1.a.

The DSSR defines “head of agency” as the “head of a government agency or anyone

designated by them to make determinations in their behalf.” DSSR 40.e. Pursuant to

delegation, the Director of the Civilian Personnel Division is charged with making this

determination for Army civilian employees stationed in Europe. Department of Defense

Instruction, 1400.25-V1250; Delegations of Civilian Human Resources Authority, Matrix

02-2017; USAREUR-AF Civilian Human Resources Delegation Authorities, Version 012023.

CBCA 8208-RELO

3

The provision of allowances pursuant to the Overseas Differentials and Allowances

Act and DSSR is a matter of discretion for the applicable agency. Sean P. Tweed-Kent,

CBCA 5528-RELO, 17-1 BCA ¶ 36,797, at 179,347. Although the agency’s exercise of

discretion for the granting of TQSA is not unfettered, the Board will overturn a denial “only

if it was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise in violation of law.” Ivan A., CBCA 7256RELO, 22-1 BCA ¶ 38,060, at 184,798 (citations omitted). In this case, we examine whether

the agency “reasonably exercised its discretion” in denying the request for four days of

TQSA overlapping with the LQA.

The Army determined that claimant’s lease did not contain stringent cleaning

requirements that required claimant to vacate prior to undertaking those requirements, an

exercise of discretion permitted by regulation. It also determined that claimant’s household

goods had already been moved. Based upon our review of the lease, we do not find any

stringent cleaning requirements. As claimant acknowledges, she could have made different

arrangements for the transport of her belongings if the agency had properly advised her as

to the requirements for relocation and TQSA. We uphold the agency’s exercise of discretion.

Claimant argues that she should not be penalized for the agency’s failure to provide

her proper guidance on this issue before she made her relocation arrangements, asserting that

she would have made different arrangements and avoided the costs she incurred if she had

been so advised. The record submitted by claimant evidences claimant’s diligent effort to

obtain guidance on all aspects of her relocation. While the Army acknowledges in its

response that the agency did a poor job of providing guidance to the claimant, incorrect

guidance or the failure to provide proper guidance does not provide a basis upon which to

grant the claim. See Thomas A. Gilbert, CBCA 2214-RELO, 11-2 BCA ¶ 34,786, at

171,206.

Decision

The claim is denied.

Marian E. Sullivan

MARIAN E. SULLIVAN

Board Judge