Dale was advised by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that he was going to be transferred to a new duty station where shortly after he signed a service agreement requiring him to remain with the government for 12 months after relocation or if not, obligated him to repay the total costs of transferring him.  The day after signing the agreement Dale told his superiors he intended to retire in six months and requested the agency to “hold his transfer in abeyance” where DEA refused.  Dale reported to his duty station and as promise retired six months later where the DEA directed him to repay the costs of relocating him.  Dale argued in his appeal that the DEA has discretion to waive collection of the money and it should exercise it because it knew he intended to retire in less than one year and still transferred him.  He also asserted in was the agency’s de facto practice to not collect costs from employees who fail to fulfill their service agreements.  The Board rejected his appeal agreeing DEA had discretion to decide whether Dale should repay the costs and that they exercised this discretion in their refusal.  Further, in denying his request to stay at his old duty station does not suggest the DEA expected him to violate his service agreement but rather it would have been reasonable for DEA to expect Dale to defer his retirement several more months to fulfill the requirement of his agreement.  As for the de facto practice, the Board stated it was irrelevant because DEA had the discretion to enforce policy where it believed it was appropriate even if Dale was the only employee to have to repay (Dale Shepard, GSBCA 16921-RELO).

{TAG_FORM_TITLE}