Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ March 3, 2000 ____________________ GSBCA 15212-RELO In the Matter of DANIEL PIERSON Daniel Pierson, Stafford, VA, Claimant. Karen S. Gillett, Counsel, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir, Department of the Army, Fort Belvoir, VA, appearing for Department of the Army. DeGRAFF, Board Judge. The claimant asks to be reimbursed for the real estate commission he paid when he purchased a new residence pursuant to a permanent change of station transfer. Because the applicable regulations provide that a real estate commission paid by an employee in connection with the purchase of a home at a new official duty station is not reimbursable, we deny the claim. In mid-1999, Daniel Pierson made a permanent change of station from Florida to Virginia. In connection with his purchase of a residence in Virginia, he paid a real estate commission. Mr. Pierson believed that he would be reimbursed for the commission, based upon his travel orders, which authorized reimbursement of real estate expenses incurred in purchasing a home, and based upon a Department of Defense (DoD) pamphlet that said employees would be reimbursed for expenses incurred when they purchased homes. Neither the travel orders nor the pamphlet stated specifically whether the Army would reimburse Mr. Pierson if he paid a real estate commission when he purchased a home, but in Mr. Pierson's view, it is reasonable to assume that such a commission would be a reimbursable expense. The Army denied Mr. Pierson's claim for reimbursement of the commission. Unfortunately for Mr. Pierson, reimbursement for real estate expenses is controlled by regulations that specifically provide that a real estate commission paid by an employee in connection with the purchase of a home at a new official duty station is not reimbursable. Both the Federal Travel Regulation, which applies to civilian employees of the Federal Government, and the Joint Travel Regulations, which apply to civilian employees of DoD, expressly state that brokerage fees and real estate commissions are reimbursable expenses when they are incurred by an employee who sells a house at the old duty station, but not when they are incurred by an employee who purchases a house at the new duty station. 41 CFR 302.6.2(a) (1999); JTR C14002-A.1 (Feb. 1, 1999). We have consistently applied these provisions to preclude reimbursement of a fee such as that paid by Mr. Pierson. Terry Beck, GSBCA 14590-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,969; Joseph H. Rosen, GSBCA 13799-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,708 (1996); Charles A. Peters, GSBCA 13643-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,689 (1996); Richard A. Chesser, GSBCA 13657-RELO (Nov. 12, 1996). Because the regulations specifically prohibit reimbursing Mr. Pierson, the Army lacked the authority to do so. The Army's decision to deny Mr. Pierson's claim was correct. ___________________________________ MARTHA H. DeGRAFF Board Judge