J. Richard Murdock

B-266286 Oct 11, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights DECISION This is in response to a request for an advance decision submitted by John F. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized a PCS from Brussels. The cost was approximately $4. Murdock is requesting reimbursement for part of the cost of these alterations as "miscellaneous expenses" in connection with his PCS. He is requesting the maximum reimbursement allowed under title 5 for miscellaneous expenses. Which in his case is $1. The issue raised by the Corps is whether the alteration costs may be reimbursed under the authority of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 despite the specific provision in the Federal Travel Regulation making the costs of structural alterations as not allowable. Sec. 302-3.1(a) is "for defraying various contingent costs associated with discontinuing residence at one location and establishing residence at a new location in connection with an authorized or approved permanent change of station.". View Decision Matter of: J. Richard Murdock File: B-266286 Date: October 11, 1996 The Federal Travel Regulation specifically excludes costs connected with structural alterations of living quarters from reimbursement as a miscellaneous expense incident to a transfer. 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302-3.1(c)(13) (1995). The cost of structural alterations to the new residence of a transferred handicapped employee may not be reimbursed as a "reasonable accommodation" under the authority of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 701, 791 (1994). DECISION This is in response to a request for an advance decision submitted by John F. Best, Chief, Finance and Accounting Division, Directorate of Resource Management, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, [1] on the appropriateness of reimbursing a mobility impaired individual for structural alterations to his new residence in connection with a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) under the authority of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. BACKGROUND J. Richard Murdock, an employee of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was authorized a PCS from Brussels, Belgium, to Vicksburg, Mississippi, effective February 1994. Mr. Murdock's new residence in Vicksburg required structural alterations for the constructing of ramps and widening of doors to accommodate his disability. The cost was approximately $4,000. Mr. Murdock is requesting reimbursement for part of the cost of these alterations as "miscellaneous expenses" in connection with his PCS. Specifically, he is requesting the maximum reimbursement allowed under title 5 for miscellaneous expenses, which in his case is $1,804.80 (two weeks basic compensation). 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302-3.3(b) (1995). The issue raised by the Corps is whether the alteration costs may be reimbursed under the authority of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 despite the specific provision in the Federal Travel Regulation making the costs of structural alterations as not allowable. As discussed below, these costs may not be allowed. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION Title 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5724(a)(1) (1994) authorizes reimbursement of travel and transportation expenses of an employee transferred in the interest of the government. Section 5724a(b) and the implementing regulations in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 C.F.R. part 302-3, authorize reimbursement of miscellaneous expenses incident to a transfer. The purpose of this allowance as stated in 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302-3.1(a) is "for defraying various contingent costs associated with discontinuing residence at one location and establishing residence at a new location in connection with an authorized or approved permanent change of station." The FTR allows reimbursement of costs "related to expenses that are common to living quarters, furnishings, household appliances, and to other general types of costs inherent in relocation of a place of residence . . . ." 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302-3.1(b). Types of costs specifically listed as not covered by the miscellaneous expense allowance under 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302-3.1(c)(13) include "costs incurred in connection with structural alterations; remodeling or modernizing of living quarters, garages or other buildings to accommodate privately owned automobiles, appliances or equipment; or the cost of replacing or repairing worn-out or defective appliances, or equipment shipped to the new location." Since Mr. Murdock's claimed costs clearly involve structural alterations to his privately-owned property, they are excluded as a reimbursable miscellaneous expense by this FTR provision. Therefore, the question is whether the claim may be paid under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 701 (1994), which requires federal agencies to formulate and implement programs for the employment and advancement of handicapped individuals. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 791(b) (1994).