In the Matter of BO W.

October 25, 2024

CBCA 8159-RELO

In the Matter of BO W.

Bo W., Claimant.

Renee Achille-Williamson, Supervisory Budget Analyst, Air Force Personnel Center,

Department of the Air Force, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph Air Force Base, TX,

appearing for Department of the Air Force.

CHADWICK, Board Judge.

The military agency relocated claimant, a civilian employee, from Florida to Illinois

and approved actual temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE-AE) at the new duty

location for thirty days. Claimant seeks review of the agency’s denial of his request to

extend the TQSE period. Because the agency applied an incorrect standard when reviewing

the extension request—requiring claimant to show a compelling reason to obtain TQSE for

sixty days or fewer—we return the claim to the agency to decide it under the proper standard.

Background

Claimant received permanent change of station orders on January 17, 2024, declined

the benefit of a house-hunting trip, see 5 U.S.C. § 5724a(b)(1)(A) (2018), entered on duty

at the new station on March 26, 2024, and, by his report, moved into permanent rental

housing on approximately May 17, 2024, fifty-three days after his start date.

In April 2024, two days before the expiration of his thirty days of approved

TQSE-AE, claimant sought a thirty-day extension, citing “[i]nability to locate permanent

housing to meet needs of family” and noting lack of rentals costing “$2400 per month or less

that accept[s] pets (excluding areas that pose safety concerns).” Claimant also stated that

CBCA 8159-RELO

2

“with my previous address still on the market I am having trouble with having my offers

being accepted.”

The agency denied the extension request the following day. Concerned that the

agency may not have fully understood his position, claimant clarified by email the next day

that the “driving factor” behind the request was not his pets or the sale of his former home

but a “shortage” of suitable homes for rent or purchase “upon [his] initial arrival” in the new

area. Claimant reported that he was about to “place an offer [to purchase] a home.”

(Apparently, claimant later rented a home instead.) The agency stood by its decision. It

cited Department of the Air Force Manual (DAFMAN) 36-142 ¶ 5.8.3.2 (Oct. 2022) and

explained, “When considering requests for TQSE for delayed occupancy due to unanticipated

problems we look for delays in mortgage processing, or [other] events that unexpectedly

occur delaying [a] closing that was originally within the authorized TQSE time frame.”

Discussion

This claim is governed by both the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the Joint

Travel Regulations (JTR), as long as the JTR are consistent with the FTR. E.g., Michael R.

Lujan, CBCA 4613-RELO, 15-1 BCA ¶ 36,096, at 176,235. Agency-level travel and

relocation policies must also be consistent with the FTR. E.g., Todd R., CBCA 8021-TRAV,

24-1 BCA ¶ 38,577, at 187,497; Kevin D. Reynolds, CBCA 2201-RELO, 11-1 BCA

¶ 34,756, at 171,061. An agency has “broad discretion” in acting on TQSE extension

requests, and we will sustain such decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary

to law. Vicky Lynn Tucci, GSBCA 16826-RELO, 06-2 BCA ¶ 33,366, at 165,408.

As we read the record, the agency did not properly apply the FTR and JTR when

considering claimant’s extension request. As the Board explained in Christopher S., CBCA

6756-RELO, 21-1 BCA ¶ 37,778, at 183,364, “the JTR [are] consistent with the FTR in that

[both do] not impose a compelling reason requirement on TQSE extension requests that do

not seek extensions beyond . . . sixty consecutive days.” (emphasis added). The applicable

FTR authorized TQSE-AE in “increments of 30 days or less” and authorized extensions for

“compelling reason[s] . . . of up to 60 additional consecutive days” after an initial sixty days.

41 CFR 302-6.104 (2023) (FTR 302-6.104). The applicable JTR, implementing the FTR,

listed examples of reasons to extend TQSE “for an additional 60 or fewer consecutive days”

up to 120 days. JTR 054206.A.1, .2 (Jan. 2024). The regulations do not limit the grounds

on which an agency may choose to extend TQSE from thirty to sixty days, as claimant

requested here. See Christopher S., 21-1 BCA at 183,364.

Although claimant sought an extension that would afford him sixty total days or fewer

(if he found housing sooner) of TQSE, the agency thought claimant needed to provide a

compelling reason, rather than only a good or sufficient reason. The agency’s emails

CBCA 8159-RELO

3

denying the request understandably cited the applicable Air Force Manual, which—we fully

recognize—prescribed “a maximum of 30 days” of TQSE for domestic relocations and

instructed travel officials to “determine [whether] there are compelling reasons” for any

extension. DAFMAN ¶¶ 5.8.3.2.1, 5.8.3.2.3. Before the Board, the agency discusses the

examples set forth in FTR 302-6.105 and JTR 054206.A.2 that may constitute compelling

reasons to extend TQSE beyond sixty days.

Requiring a compelling reason for claimant’s extension request deviated from the

regulatory instructions. “Because the agency misconstrued the guidance set forth in the FTR

and JTR, the agency has not properly exercised its discretion or articulated an acceptable

basis for denying the request.” Christopher S., 21-1 BCA at 183,364. Citing the agency

manual alone cannot support a denial. The manual reflects the agency’s regulatory

interpretations, which “are trumped by” the regulations themselves. Kevin D. Reynolds, 11-1

BCA at 171,061; see Michael Bilodeau, CBCA 686-TRAV, 07-2 BCA ¶ 33,716, at

166,909–10 (“[I]nterpretative agency rules[] are trumped by the FTR, which is a legislative

rule.”).

It is not the Board’s role to grant or deny the extension request in the first instance.

See Board Rule 401(c) (48 CFR 6104.401(c)). That discretion remains with the agency,

which must decide whether the circumstances presented here warranted an extension of

TQSE beyond thirty days, until claimant obtained housing in fewer than sixty total days.

Decision

We return the claim to the agency to decide it without requiring that claimant’s

justification be compelling.

Kyle Chadwick

KYLE CHADWICK

Board Judge