Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405

                                                            
               
                     _______________________

                         January 21, 2000
                     _______________________

                         GSBCA 14747-RELO

                In the Matter of THOMAS W. SCHMIDT

     Thomas W. Schmidt, Burleson, TX, Claimant.

     Stephen Coakley, Deputy Chief of Staff, Resource Management, United States Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Army.

HYATT, Board Judge.

     Claimant, Thomas W. Schmidt, has asked for reconsideration of our decision
sustaining a determination by the Corps of Engineers that his eligibility for reimbursement
of real estate transaction costs under amended permanent change of station orders could not
be extended beyond the three-year limitation set forth in applicable regulations.  We
concluded that the Corps of Engineers had properly decided that it lacked authority to take
the action requested by claimant.  Thomas W. Schmidt, GSBCA 14747-RELO, 99-2 BCA 
 30,430.

     Claimant transferred from Fort Worth to Dallas, Texas in May 1994.  He did not sell
his home and move closer to Dallas at the time of his transfer because the Corps was
considering collocating the Fort Worth and Dallas offices and he thought he could save the
Government the expenses of two moves in the event he was transferred back to Fort Worth. 
After considering this possibility for some time, in June 1998, the Corps decided that it
would maintain the two separate locations.  Claimant asserted that he delayed selling his
home in the Fort Worth area solely to save the Government the cost of relocating him twice
and that his division officials knew and approved of this action.  Indeed, claimant's division
officials amended his travel orders several times, extending the time in which he would be
permitted to complete his move and be eligible for reimbursement of real estate expenses. 
When the Corps officially reviewed these actions, it concluded  that it was not authorized to
amend or reissue the travel orders to extend the time for Mr. Schmidt to receive real estate
transaction expenses.  We agreed that, under the relevant regulations, the Corps lacked
authority to grant this request.  41 CFR 302-6.1 (1994); JTR C14000-B.  

     Mr. Schmidt, in requesting reconsideration, takes issue with the penultimate sentence
in the following paragraph from our decision:

               Because the agency lacks authority to extend the
          maximum time frame in which to reimburse real estate
          transaction expenses incurred in connection with a PCS, it
          similarly lacks authority to amend or reissue Mr. Schmidt's
          travel orders to extend the time in which these expenses may be
          paid by the agency.  [Foot # 1 ]  An agency may not alter travel
          orders retroactively to authorize recoupment of an expense that
          is not permitted by statute or regulation or to increase or
          decrease entitlements fixed by statute or regulation.  See Daniel
          P. Carstens, GSBCA 14519-RELO,  98-2 BCA   30,048;
          Michael K. Vessey, B-214886 (July 3, 1984);  Erwin E. Drossel,
          B-203009 (May 17, 1982).  We recognize that claimant's
          division office genuinely believed the Corps could
          accommodate his desire to save the Government the cost of two
          moves, and that he relied on this misinformation.  Additionally,
          claimant had no control over the length of time it took to resolve
          the collocation question.  Nonetheless, despite the good
          intentions of everyone involved, there was no authority to revise
          the travel orders to extend the time in which to complete real
          estate transactions associated with claimant's transfer and the
          modifications of the travel orders had no legal effect.  The
          Government is not bound by the erroneous advice of its officials
          even when the employee has relied on this advice to his
          detriment.  E.g., John J. Cody [GSBCA 13701-RELO, 97-1
          BCA   28,694 (1996)].  The Corps has correctly determined that
          it may not now reissue claimant's travel orders to permit
          recoupment of real estate expenses associated with claimant's
          1994 transfer to Dallas. 

     
****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ]       Moreover, both the Joint Travel Regulations and the Federal Travel
Regulation link eligibility for reimbursement  of  these expenses  to  the  employee's  actual 
reporting  date at the new duty station, which presumably cannot be altered by retroactively
amended travel orders.  
****************** Footnote End ************

In his request for reconsideration, Mr. Schmidt states that the "key" to the decision appears
to be that he was "given bad 'advice' by the Corps officials."  He submits that in fact he did
not rely on the erroneous advice provided by his division; he was issued travel orders
extending the time to complete his move.  The crux of the Board's decision was that the
actions of Mr. Schmidt's division in extending his travel orders, although well-intentioned,
were wholly invalid.  The time limitation established by regulation cannot be extended in this
manner.  The distinction pointed out  by claimant makes no difference in this case.  It is well-
settled that erroneous travel orders, reflecting mistaken assumptions on the part of
authorizing officials, cannot obligate the Government to expend monies contrary to
regulation.  Charles M. Ferguson, GSBCA 14568-TRAV, 99-1 BCA   30,299; James E.
Black, GSBCA 14548-RELO, 98-2 BCA   29,876; William Archilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO,
97-1 BCA   28,799.  It is immaterial whether erroneous advice is provided informally or
memorialized in an order.

     Accordingly, claimant's request for reconsideration is denied.

 

                                        ____________________________
                                        CATHERINE B. HYATT
                                        Board Judge