CBCA 8461-RELO

October 7, 2025 CBCA 8461-RELO In the Matter of STEPHEN C. Stephen C., Claimant. Marian G. Cory, Travel Office, Human Capital Management Group, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Department of the Navy, Patuxent River, MD, appearing for Department of the Navy. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant is a former civilian employee of the Department of Defense. He seeks this Board’s review of the agency’s denial of reimbursement of moving costs. We deny the claim. Background Pursuant to a remote work agreement (RWA), claimant and his family were residing at his duty station in Morgantown, West Virginia, to which claimant had accomplished a permanent change of station (PCS) from his previous duty station in Patuxent River, Maryland. The RWA read in relevant part: The employee has requested that his/her official duty station be changed to MORGANTOWN, WV. The employee acknowledges that he/she is entering into this agreement voluntarily at his/her request, not at the request of NAWCAD PAX [Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Patuxent River], and this agreement is not made for any official/mission-related purpose. The employee acknowledges and understands the following provisions apply: CBCA 8461-RELO 2 .... NAWCAD PAX retains the right to terminate the remote work arrangement/change in duty station at any time and for any reason. . . . NAWCAD PAX will be responsible for relocation expenses to return the employee to the original duty station, if the employee is ordered to do so. For civilian employees, PCS travel and transportation allowances must be paid in most circumstances when it is in the Government’s interest to move the employee. This provision does not apply to the employee’s voluntary return to PATUXENT RIVER. When the transfer to a new permanent duty station is made primarily for the convenience or benefit of an employee or at his/her request, PCS may not be allowed or paid from Government funds. . . . In the event that NAWCAD PAX terminates the remote work arrangement/change in duty station, the employee will have 90 calendar days from the date they are notified to return to work at PATUXENT RIVER. During this 90-day period, the employee will be expected to continue to work remotely or to request leave if not available for duty. Notice of Claim, Attachment 1. In January 2025, an executive order requiring federal employees to return to the office was issued by the President. The order required claimant to return to in-person work and qualified claimant for a permanent change of station (PCS) to his previous duty station. Claimant began discussing a PCS with his supervisor. Notice of Claim, Attachment 2. Claimant received an email on February 22, 2025, from his supervisor advising that “PCS move would be approved for people who’s (sic) duty location is remote to Pax (meaning your current location in WV).” Claimant’s Reply to Agency Response at 7. In March 2025, claimant signed leases for his home in West Virginia and housing in Maryland. Notice of Claim, Attachments 3 & 4. On April 3, 2025, claimant arranged to have movers ship his household goods to Maryland on April 17, 2025. Notice of Claim at 2. Also on April 3, 2025, claimant was copied on an email from agency personnel that stated, “I intend to authorize the PCS move for [claimant] from Morgantown, WV to Patuxent River, MD.” Claimant’s Reply to Agency Response, Attachment 3. On April 7, 2025, the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP 2.0) was announced. Notice of Claim at 2. On April 14, 2025, in the morning, claimant received PCS orders to return to his original duty station in Maryland. Id. Later that same day, claimant submitted CBCA 8461-RELO 3 his application for the DRP 2.0. Id. On April 15, 2025, when agency personnel identified claimant as a DRP 2.0 applicant, a conference call was held during which claimant was advised by the agency personnel that he must choose whether to accomplish a PCS or take deferred resignation pursuant to DRP 2.0. He was also told that his DRP 2.0 application paused his PCS orders, as it exempted him from returning to in-person work. Claimant was cautioned that he would not be reimbursed for costs related to moving if he accepted deferred resignation and was urged not to incur costs. However, claimant was informed that if he decided to remain as a government employee, his PCS orders would be reinstated. Agency Response at 5. This was confirmed to claimant via email on April 15, 2025.