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


                      ______________________                     

                          March 17, 2006
                      ______________________


                         GSBCA 16785-RELO


               In the Matter of JEFFREY A. WHITTALL


     Jeffrey A. Whittall, Monument, CO, Claimant.

     Rick Miller, Civilian Travel and Overseas Allowances Policy Manager, Force
Sustainment Division, Office of the Chief of Staff, Department of the Air Force,
Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Air Force.

PARKER, Board Judge.

                            Background

     When Jeffrey A. Whittall retired from active duty in the Air Force in 2004, he became
entitled to have the Government pay for a move from his last post of duty in Vacaville,
California, to a "home of selection" within the continental United States.  While he was still
in Vacaville, Mr. Whittall found a civilian position with the Air Force at Schriever Air Force
Base (AFB) in Colorado Springs, Colorado.  The civilian position included payment of
relocation expenses, including transportation and temporary storage of Mr. Whittall's
household goods.

     In July 2004, the Air Force's Civilian Personnel Office (CPO) at Schriever AFB
informed Mr. Whittall that the office had no current available funding for permanent
changes of stations and advised Mr. Whittall to use his military entitlement to move from
Vacaville to Colorado Springs.  Mr. Whittall agreed to use his military entitlement to move
to Colorado Springs if the CPO would issue a written guarantee that he could later use his
civilian permanent change of station (PCS) entitlement to move his household goods from
a home that he would rent for one year in Colorado Springs to a new home that he would
have constructed.  By electronic mail, the CPO told Mr. Whittall:

     If you decide to use your military PCS entitlement to move to a rental house
     for 1 year, you will still be issued a [sic] civilian PCS orders.  Your civilian
     PCS orders will pay for your delayed household goods delivery to your
     permanent house after 1 year or so as long as you do not let your 2 year
     civilian PCS entitlement expire.

The CPO issued PCS orders for the move from Vacaville to Schriever AFB in August 2004,
and Mr. Whittall moved to a rental house in Colorado Springs using his military entitlement.

     Mr. Whittall's new house will be ready in July 2006, and he has asked the Air Force
to transport his household goods there.  The Air Force has refused, on the basis that it lacks
authority to pay for an employee's move from one dwelling in the Colorado Springs area to
another dwelling in the same area.  The Air Force "agree[s] that the employee was in
'temporary residence' in [Colorado]" but maintains that Mr. Whittall received erroneous
advice concerning the agency's authority to pay for the second move.  Mr. Whittall has
asked the Board to review the Air Force's decision.

                            Discussion

     By statute, a new appointee to federal service is entitled to certain benefits when he
or she moves to his duty station from his or her place of residence at the time of
appointment.  5 U.S.C.    5722, 5723 (2000).  These benefits are similar to those provided
to an employee whom an agency transfers in the interest of the Government from one duty
station to another, id.    5724, 5724a, but they are not identical.  Agencies are authorized to
reimburse the travel and transportation expenses of a new appointee and his or her
immediate family, the transportation and temporary storage expenses of household goods
and personal effects, and the cost of shipping a privately owned motor vehicle from the
place of residence at the time of selection to the initial duty station.  Id.   5723.  The Federal
Travel Regulation similarly provides for payment of the foregoing expenses.  41 CFR
302-3.2 (2003);  Jerome A. Dosdall, GSBCA 16244-RELO, 04-1 BCA   32,464.  The Joint
Travel Regulations (JTR) are to the same effect.  JTR C5080-B(6)(c).

     We have held that the purpose of the statute authorizing payment of relocation
expenses for transferred employees is "to help pay the cost of moving to the new place of 
employment."  Linda L. Skaggs, GSBCA 16494-RELO, 05-1 BCA   32,813 (quoting
S. Rep. No. 89-1357, at 2-4 (1966), reprinted in 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2565-67) (emphasis
added).  The statute is designed to authorize payment of expenses "incident to transfer from
the old to the new station."  Id.; see Paul W. Gard, Jr., GSBCA 15311-RELO, 00-2 BCA 
 31,053.  These same considerations apply to newly-hired appointees moving to their first
duty stations.  Richard E. Stegall, GSBCA 16454-RELO, 04-2 BCA   32,794.

     Unfortunately for Mr. Whittall, the Air Force's determination that it lacks authority
to pay for Mr. Whittall's move to his newly-constructed house was correct.  Although the
agency clearly did Mr. Whittall a disservice by giving him erroneous advice, Mr. Whittall's
move from one house to another in the Colorado Springs area cannot be considered a move
"to the new place of employment" or "incident to the transfer."  By the time he moves in
July 2006, he will have lived and worked at his duty station for almost two years.  This is
far too long to be considered as a continuation of the move from Vacaville to Colorado
Springs.  At this point Mr. Whittall is simply moving from one residence to another in the
area of his duty station, a cost the statutes and regulations governing payment of relocation
expenses do not authorize.

     The fact that the Air Force provided Mr. Whittall with erroneous advice concerning
his move does not entitle him to benefits that are not authorized by statute and regulation. 
We recently explained in some detail the reasons for this rule:

     Allowing an agency to make a payment for a purpose not authorized by statute
     or regulation would violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. 
     U.S. Const. art. I,   9, cl. 7 ("No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but
     in consequence of Appropriations made by Law.")  The Supreme Court
     consequently has made clear that an executive branch employee's promise that
     the Government will make an "extrastatutory" payment is not binding.  Where
     relevant statute and regulations do not provide for payment for a particular
     purpose, an agency may not make such payment.  Teresa M. Erickson,
     GSBCA 15210-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,900 (citing Office of Personnel
     Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990); Federal Crop Insurance
     Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)).  Although the employee may have
     relied to his detriment on his agency's assurances, he may not be reimbursed
     because the law prevents the agency from honoring commitments made in its
     name by officials who do not have the power to make them.  Alexander S.
     Button, GSBCA 16138-RELO, 04-1 BCA   32,452 (2003); Louise C. Msse,
     GSBCA 15684-RELO, 02-1 BCA   31,694 (2001); Gary MacLeay,
     GSBCA 15394-RELO, 01-1 BCA   31,210 (2000).
     
Bruce Hidaka-Gordon, GSBCA 16811-RELO (Mar. 13, 2006).

     Payment of Mr. Whittall's moving expenses would be contrary to statute and
regulation.  Accordingly, his claim for payment of these expenses must be denied.



                                   ________________________
                                   ROBERT W. PARKER
                                   Board Judge