In re Stephen C. (2025)

Case details
Full caption
In the Matter of Stephen C.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
October 7, 2025CBCA 8461-RELOIn the Matter of STEPHEN C.Stephen C., Claimant.Marian G. Cory, Travel Office, Human Capital Management Group, Naval AirWarfare Center Aircraft Division, Department of the Navy, Patuxent River, MD, appearingfor Department of the Navy.GOODMAN, Board Judge.Claimant is a former civilian employee of the Department of Defense. He seeks thisBoard’s review of the agency’s denial of reimbursement of moving costs. We deny theclaim.BackgroundPursuant to a remote work agreement (RWA), claimant and his family were residingat his duty station in Morgantown, West Virginia, to which claimant had accomplished apermanent 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 toMORGANTOWN, WV. The employee acknowledges that he/she is enteringinto this agreement voluntarily at his/her request, not at the request ofNAWCAD PAX [Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Patuxent River],and this agreement is not made for any official/mission-related purpose. Theemployee acknowledges and understands the following provisions apply:
CBCA 8461-RELO2. . . . NAWCAD PAX retains the right to terminate the remote workarrangement/change in duty station at any time and for any reason. . . .NAWCAD PAX will be responsible for relocation expenses to return theemployee to the original duty station, if the employee is ordered to do so. Forcivilian employees, PCS travel and transportation allowances must be paid inmost circumstances when it is in the Government’s interest to move theemployee. This provision does not apply to the employee’s voluntary returnto PATUXENT RIVER. When the transfer to a new permanent duty stationis made primarily for the convenience or benefit of an employee or at his/herrequest, PCS may not be allowed or paid from Government funds. . . .In the event that NAWCAD PAX terminates the remote workarrangement/change in duty station, the employee will have 90 calendar daysfrom 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 workremotely 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 officewas issued by the President. The order required claimant to return to in-person work andqualified 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 “PCSmove would be approved for people who’s (sic) duty location is remote to Pax (meaning yourcurrent 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 inMaryland. Notice of Claim, Attachments 3 & 4. On April 3, 2025, claimant arranged tohave 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 PatuxentRiver, 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 toreturn to his original duty station in Maryland. Id. Later that same day, claimant submitted
CBCA 8461-RELO3his application for the DRP 2.0. Id. On April 15, 2025, when agency personnel identifiedclaimant as a DRP 2.0 applicant, a conference call was held during which claimant wasadvised by the agency personnel that he must choose whether to accomplish a PCS or takedeferred resignation pursuant to DRP 2.0. He was also told that his DRP 2.0 applicationpaused his PCS orders, as it exempted him from returning to in-person work. Claimant wascautioned that he would not be reimbursed for costs related to moving if he accepted deferredresignation and was urged not to incur costs. However, claimant was informed that if hedecided to remain as a government employee, his PCS orders would be reinstated. AgencyResponse at 5. This was confirmed to claimant via email on April 15, 2025. Notice ofClaim, Attachment 6. Claimant stated during the April 15, 2025, conference call that eventhough he was still undecided as to remaining in his position versus accepting deferredresignation, he planned to move to Maryland. Two days later, on April 17, 2025, claimantand his family moved. Claimant states that he paid the movers after the move was completeon April 18, 2025. Claimant’s Reply to Agency’s Response at 4.On May 1, 2025, claimant executed a DRP 2.0 agreement which placed him onadministrative leave from May 2, 2025, through June 27, 2025, the date he resigned from hisfederal position. Claimant’s Response to Board’s September 25, 2025 Order. During May2025, after he had moved to Maryland, claimant received and was copied on various emailsfrom other agency personnel who had not participated in the conference call on April 15,2025. These emails stated a belief that claimant was entitled to reimbursement for movingcosts because he had received his PCS orders and moved before executing the DRP 2.0agreement. Notice of Claim, Attachment 12. Claimant submitted his moving costs forreimbursement. Id., Attachments 7, 8, 9b, & 9c. On May 22, 2025, a memorandum wasissued authorizing reimbursement of moving costs of claimant’s household goods. Id.,Attachment 9a. However, on June 9, 2025, the agency issued a memorandum converting thepause of the PCS orders to cancellation because claimant had resigned. Agency Responseat 6. The agency has denied reimbursement of claimant’s moving costs, and claimant seeksthis Board’s review of the agency’s denial.DiscussionClaimant seeks reimbursement of the costs that he incurred when he moved from hisWest Virginia duty station to Maryland just two weeks before he decided to execute a DRP2.0 agreement and resign from his federal government position.Claimant’s RWA, which allowed him to work remotely at his West Virginia dutystation, was cancelled by a return to work order that required him to return to in-person work. After claimant began making arrangements for a PCS for himself and his family inanticipation of receiving PCS orders to return to his previous duty station in Maryland, the
CBCA 8461-RELO4DRP 2.0 was offered to federal employees. The offer of the DRP 2.0 presented claimantwith a decision whether to remain as a federal government employee or to elect deferredresignation. Seven days after the DRP 2.0 program was offered, claimant received his PCSorders to relocate to his previous duty station. On the same day, after receiving his PCSorders, claimant submitted his DRP 2.0 program application.Claimant acknowledges that the next day he was advised by agency personnel, whohad become aware of his DRP 2.0 application, that his PCS orders were paused until hedecided whether to remain as a federal government employee or to take the deferredresignation offer and that he would not be reimbursed for moving costs if he ultimatelyresigned.1 Claimant moved two days later without advising the agency of his decision. Claimant did not relocate to a new duty station as his PCS orders remained paused as theresult of his indecision at that time. He moved voluntarily, primarily for his ownconvenience and benefit.2 Claimant stated during the April 15, 2025, conference call that heintended to move to Maryland regardless of his decision regarding continued federalemployment.3 Two weeks after moving to Maryland, claimant executed the DRP 2.01Claimant acknowledges this communication and states that “I was under theimpression that I would not be reimbursed based on communication received. . . . However,and the whole basis of my claim, is that based on information I received from [others] in theagency . . . I was informed after I had finished moving that I was entitled to reimbursementand was told I needed to submit for reimbursement.” Claimant’s Reply to Agency’sResponse at 4. Apparently, those in the agency that advised claimant he was entitled toreimbursement were not aware of the advice he received from other agency personnel the dayafter the PCS orders were issued.2Claimant’s RWA stated that relocation costs would not be paid in the event ofhis voluntary return to his previous duty station. Notice of Claim, Attachment 1.3In his reply to the agency’s response , claimant does not deny that he made thisstatement during the conference call. However, he states that “when I received verbal andemail communication to not incur expenses associated with the PCS orders, it was too late.” Claimant’s Response to Board’s August 28, 2025, Order at 5. He bases this assertion onJoint Travel Regulations (JTR) 053710 (May 2025), which requires PCS orders to includea thirty-day notice period prior to the required reporting date at the new PDS. This regulationdoes not authorize reimbursement of costs incurred before, during, or after a PDS, nor canit be read to encourage claimant to make moving arrangements before receiving his PCSorders. Claimant also cited several additional inapplicable regulations allegedly supportingreimbursement. When directed to supply the text of these regulations, claimant respondedthat he had used artificial intelligence to create his submission and withdrew his reliance on
CBCA 8461-RELO5agreement and resigned from government service. Because he chose to resign, the PCSorders, previously paused, were thereafter cancelled. Claimant is not entitled toreimbursement of his moving costs.DecisionThe claim is denied. Allan H. Goodman ALLAN H. GOODMANBoard Judgethe cited regulations except for JTR 053710. Claimant’s Response to Board’s Inquiries(Aug. 28, 2025) at 5.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access