Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
 
            _______________________________________________
 
                            February 7, 2001
            _______________________________________________
 
                            GSBCA 15432-RELO
 
 
                  In the Matter of FREDERICK J. BARTH
 
 
        Frederick J. Barth, Henderson, NV, Claimant.
 
        Ray E. York, Chief, Travel Systems Division, Defense Finance
   and   Accounting  Service,   Indianapolis,   IN,  appearing   for
   Department of Defense.
 
   BORWICK, Board Judge.
 
        In this  matter, claimant,  Frederick J.  Barth, a  civilian
   employee  of the  United States  Department  of Defense,  agency,
   appeals from the  agency's establishment of  a debt of  $5632.33.
   The agency established the debt when it determined  that claimant
   had been erroneously  reimbursed for permanent change  of station
   (PCS) entitlements for his family because claimant and his family
   had returned from abroad  to retire from  the agency.  We  affirm
   the  agency's decision  since the  agency  correctly applied  the
   controlling  statute and the  applicable provisions of  the Joint
   Travel Regulations (JTR).  
 
        Claimant,  stationed   in  Korea,  decided  to   retire  and
   requested the agency to allow an early return of his family.  The
   agency agreed to  the request and issued a  travel authorization,
   dated  May  21, 1998,  for  their  return.    The  authorization,
   however,  included  entitlement  to  reimbursement  of  temporary
   quarters  subsistence expenses  (TQSE) and  miscellaneous expense
   allowance (MEA).   Upon  receipt of  the authorization,  claimant
   told  his   supervisor,  the  Civilian  Personnel   Office,  Camp
   Humphreys,  Korea,   and  finance  personnel   at  Fort  Belvoir,
   Virginia, that he was not in PCS  status and that the orders were
   for  return of  his  family  only.   Claimant  states that  those
   offices "said  that I  needed PCS orders,  even after  I informed
   them that I was not returning to the United States at that time."
   Claimant states that those offices  "also insisted that my family
   was  entitled  to  lodging  and  meals  according  to  the  JTR."
   Claimant later returned to the United States to retire.  
 
        Claimant's family returned from  overseas, and between  June
   13  and  August 11  incurred  sixty days  of  TQSE and  MEA.   On
   September  9, claimant  submitted a  voucher  and was  reimbursed
   $5741.70, which the agency states represents the net of dependent
   per diem, transportation,  TQSE, and MEA, less federal income tax
   and medicare withholding.
 
        During  an  audit  of   claimant's  relocation  income   tax
   allowance  claim, the agency  determined it had  erroneously paid
   claimant TQSE  and MEA  and, on July  26, 2000,  advised claimant
   that it was establishing a debt of $5617.33 and charging claimant
   an administrative fee of $15 for  a total debt of $5632.33.   The
   agency advised  claimant that  "the orders were  for Return  From
   Overseas for Separation.  The  entitlements on this type of order
   [are] limited  to transportation  for dependents."   The  debt of
   $5632.33 is  less than the  $5741.70 the agency paid  to claimant
   because the  agency allowed claimant reimbursement  for dependent
   transportation.  
 
        Claimant disputes the debt, stating that:
 
        all  of the experts  . . . in Korea,  Fort Belvoir, and
        finance . . .  all stated  that I  was entitled to  the
        funds  that you now insist that I  have to repay.  This
        would  create  an  extreme hardship  on  myself  and my
        family, as the only income that I have is my retirement
        pay.
 
        The statute in  effect when claimant's family  incurred TQSE
   and MEA authorized,  as it does today, agencies to pay TQSE to an
   employee when the employee is  transferred in the interest of the
   Government.  5 U.S.C.   5724, 5724a  (1994 & Supp. III 1997); see
   also   5 U.S.C.    5724, 5724a (Supp. IV  1998)(current version).
   Travel  for return  for separation  is not  considered to  be PCS
   travel for  the purpose  of  satisfying the  requirements of  the
   statute.    Louis  David Carter,  GSBCA  15381-RELO,  01-1  BCA  
   31,137.
 
        Therefore, the JTR in effect when claimant's family incurred
   the TQSE  provided that  employees and  their families  returning
   from overseas  for separation  were not eligible  for TQSE.   JTR
   C13110-D4 (Apr. 1,  1998).  The current version of the JTR is the
   same.   JTR 13115-B4 (Dec.  1, 2000).  During  the relevant time,
   the  JTR  also limited  MEA  to  employees  "for whom  a  PCS  is
   authorized and approved."  JTR C9002 (June 1, 1995).  The current
   JTR is substantively the same.  JTR C9002-3 (Aug. 1, 2000).  
 
        It is unfortunate that the travel voucher was  erroneous and
   that  claimant   received  consistently  erroneous   advice  from
   numerous sources.   Those facts, however, cannot serve to enlarge
   claimant's   entitlements.    Louis   David  Carter;  Jeniece  K.
   Stanfield, GSBCA 15281-RELO, 00-2 BCA   30,954.  The agency acted
   correctly in establishing  the debt and we  deny the claim.   The
   agency can  waive the debt,  but such a  course is solely  in the
   discretion of the agency.  See Gary Morris, GSBCA 15290-RELO, 00-
   2 BCA   31,132.  
 
 
                                 __________________________
                                 ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                 Board Judge