Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________ June 14, 2000 ________________ GSBCA 15317-RELO In the Matter of MARYANN ZEKUNDE Maryann Zekunde, Fanwood, NJ, Claimant. Jerry S. Hinton, Acting Director for Finance, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Arlington, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. PARKER, Board Judge. When the Military Sealift Command (Atlantic) was relocating from New Jersey to Virginia in 1997, Maryann Zekunde received orders to transfer along with her unit. Among other things, the orders authorized reimbursement of real estate expenses. After receiving her relocation orders, Ms. Zekunde entered into a contract for the sale of her home. Ms. Zekunde never moved to Virginia, however. Before transferring with her unit, she accepted a job in the local area with the Department of Justice. She completed the sale of her home in November 1997, after accepting the job with Justice. The Navy reimbursed Ms. Zekunde in the amount of $7532.68 for expenses incurred in connection with the sale of her home but has now asked for the money back. According to the Navy, Ms. Zekunde is not entitled to payment of these expenses because she never transferred to Virginia, or anywhere for that matter. Ms. Zekunde believes that the reimbursement was proper because, while her transfer to Virginia was pending, her agency was encouraging employees to seek employment in the local area because there were [sic] a limited number of jobs available in VA for the larger NJ workforce. Also, the cost to completely move everyone would be prohibitive. Ms. Zekunde also alleges that she was told that she would be reimbursed for the real estate expenses even if she accepted the local position with the Department of Justice because of the fact that my sales contract was entered into before new employment was accepted. Discussion Pursuant to statute, the Government pays expenses of the sale of the residence at the old official station and purchase of a residence at the new official station to or on behalf of an employee who transfers in the interest of the Government[.] 5 U.S.C. 5724a(d)(1) (Supp. IV 1998). The short answer here is that Ms. Zekunde is not entitled to reimbursement of real estate expenses because she did not transfer in the interest of the Government. We have held that an employee may be reimbursed for costs incurred before his or her transfer was canceled by the Government. Jeffrey Meyer, GSBCA 14138-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,597. Even when a transfer is canceled, however, the costs to be reimbursed must have been incurred incident to the transfer, and not in connection with a personal decision. Mrs. Jack Kimbrough, GSBCA 13908-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,041. Here, Ms. Zekunde s transfer was not canceled by the Government. She decided, for personal reasons, to accept a job in her local area rather than transfer with her unit. The fact that Ms. Zekunde s personal decision may also have benefitted the Government does not change its essential character. Under these circumstances, we can find no authority for reimbursing Ms. Zekunde. Finally, the fact that Ms. Zekunde may have received erroneous advice does not entitle her to reimbursement. It is well-settled that a Government official may not obligate the Government to spend money in violation of statute or regulation. E.g., Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996). __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge