Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ April 12, 2000 ____________________ GSBCA 15159-RELO In the Matter of PATRICK W. BREWER Patrick W. Brewer, Durango, CO, Claimant. Gerri Stivers, Acting Chief, Branch of Payments, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, NM, appearing for Department of the Interior. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimant in this case, Mr. Patrick W. Brewer, an employee of the Department of the Interior, asks that we review his agency's denial of a claim for per diem and temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) for his son. As a family member still living with his parents, Mr. Brewer's son traveled with them from St. George, Utah, to Flagstaff, Arizona, on the occasion of his father's permanent change of station (PCS) move. Claimant's son also remained with his parents while the family was in temporary quarters. The agency has advised Mr. Brewer that he cannot include his son in any claim for PCS travel because his son, being over twenty-one years of age, can no longer be considered a member of claimant's immediate family. We affirm the agency's ruling. Background Claimant states that, prior to his transfer in June 1999, he was asked to fill out a personnel transfer travel data form. The form called for the name and date of birth of children included in the transfer. Mr. Brewer listed his son, Patrick, on the form and indicated that Patrick was born on October 31, 1977. He explains that Patrick is a full-time student in college and, therefore, is still dependent upon his parents for support. In the travel authorization issued to Mr. Brewer shortly after he returned that travel data form, provision was made for per diem allowance for claimant, his spouse, and one child over twelve. Similarly, TQSE was authorized for claimant, his spouse and one child over twelve. After Mr. Brewer submitted his claim for relocation expenses, he was advised that several items had been disallowed because he had included his son in the calculation of his claim. He was directed to revise his claim to include only himself and his spouse since his son, at the time of the transfer, was over twenty-one years of age and not physically or mentally incapable of self support. Mr. Brewer objects to any adjustment to his claim. He states that he submitted his travel voucher in good faith based upon an erroneous travel authorization. He does not believe he should be required to absorb the costs resulting from a personnel error. Discussion Under the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), a transferred Government employee and the members of the employee's immediate family are entitled to travel expenses when en route to the employee's new official station. 41 CFR pt. 302-2 (1998) (FTR pt. 302-2). The employee and his or her immediate family may also be paid for expenses incurred while occupying temporary quarters immediately prior to or after a PCS. FTR pt. 302-5. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the definition section of Chapter 302 of the FTR expressly states that "immediate family" includes: Children of the employee or the employee's spouse who are unmarried and under 21 years of age or who, regardless of age, are physically or mentally incapable of self-support. Id. 302-1.4(f)(1)(ii). Under this definition, Mr. Brewer's son, Patrick, who reached his twenty-first birthday on October 31, 1998, cannot be considered a member of Mr. Brewer's family for purposes of determining his father's relocation benefits under Chapter 302 of the FTR. The agency is entirely correct in insisting that Mr. Brewer's claim can include only the employee and his spouse. Joseph A. Soto, GSBCA 15023-RELO, 00-1 BCA 30,609 (1999) (employee's twenty-four-year-old daughter and her infant son not part of immediate family in absence of convincing evidence that mother is physically or mentally incapable of self-support or that grandson was under the legal guardianship of the employee or his spouse). Need we still come to the same conclusion even in cases such as this, where an agency official has actually issued an authorization which includes payment of the son's expenses? Unfortunately for claimant we can make no exceptions in this regard. The authorization upon which Mr. Brewer wishes to rely is clearly contrary to regulation. It is well established that the Government simply may not spend money in violation of statute or regulation. Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996) (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)). Payment, in the absence of proper authorization, cannot be justified solely by the fact that a claimant may have relied on an improper authorization to his or her detriment. While it may seem inequitable that a claimant cannot be paid money which agency employees assured him would be forthcoming, nevertheless, it must be recognized that the overriding concern in such cases is the protection of the taxpayer interest in not having unlawful disbursement made from public funds. See Patricia A. Tobin, GSBCA 14483, 98-1 BCA 29,663. Further, in this particular case, we note that claimant is no worse off, as a result of the error in his travel authorization, than he would have been had the error not been made. There is no indication in our record that he shouldered the expense of Patrick's moving to Arizona solely because he expected to be reimbursed by the agency for this cost. Accordingly, we affirm the agency's determination that Mr. Brewer's claim should be revised to include only allowances for himself and his spouse. _____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge