Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405







                                        

                     ________________________



                          June 30, 2004

                     ________________________





                         GSBCA 16419-RELO





                In the Matter of JOHN J. CHURCHILL





     John J. Churchill, Chesapeake, VA, Claimant.



     Judy Hughes, Travel Pay Services, Policy and Procedures, Defense Finance and

Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense.



HYATT, Board Judge.



     A new appointee who has relocated to accept employment with the Government may

not be reimbursed for temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) or paid a

miscellaneous expense allowance, since such benefits are not authorized by statute or

regulation.



                            Background



     In February 2004, claimant, John J. Churchill, was extended an offer of employment

by the Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR), Department

of the Navy, located in Norfolk, Virginia.  At that time, Mr. Churchill was living in Fair

Lawn, New Jersey.   In support of the employment offer, COMOPTEVFOR issued travel

orders authorizing Mr. Churchill's self-move of his household goods, miscellaneous

expenses, and TQSE for Mr. Churchill and his three minor children.  Mr. Churchill accepted

the offer and moved to Norfolk.  



     After the travel orders were issued, and Mr. Churchill had borrowed the funds

necessary to move to Norfolk, the Navy determined that it did not in fact have the authority

to reimburse claimant for his subsistence expenses or to pay him a miscellaneous expense

allowance.  This has, unfortunately, resulted in significant financial hardship for Mr.

Churchill, who relied on the promise that he would be reimbursed.   COMOPTEVFOR states,

in support of its request that Mr. Churchill somehow be compensated for these expenses, that

it issued the orders erroneously in the good faith belief that these costs associated with

relocating could be absorbed by the agency.  The Defense Finance and Accounting Service

(DFAS) has confirmed the Navy's determination that the claim cannot be paid and has

forwarded the claim to the Board for review. 



                            Discussion



     By statute, a new appointee to federal service is entitled to certain benefits when he

or she moves to a 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, but not identical, 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.  In particular, the law authorizes agencies to reimburse

transferred employees, but not new appointees, for relocation benefits such as TQSE, the cost

of a house-hunting trip, a  miscellaneous expense allowance, and residence sale and purchase

expenses.  Id.    5723 (a)(1)-(3), 5724a.  Both the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the

Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) contain provisions implementing these statutory provisions. 

See 41 CFR 302-3.2, -3.3 (2003); JTR C9002-1, C13115-B.1; accord, e.g., Charles M.

Russell, GSBCA 16000-RELO, 03-1 BCA   32,176; David Kallman, GSBCA 15671-RELO,

03-1 BCA   32,118 (2002); Roy Katayama, GSBCA 15605-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,542;

Barbara A. Caviness, GSBCA 15390-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,498.



     We recognize that claimant's travel orders did, in fact, authorize reimbursement of

TQSE and miscellaneous expenses.  As DFAS properly advised the command, however,  the

erroneous authorization of these expenses cannot create an entitlement or bind the

Government.  Agencies cannot authorize  the payment of money in violation of statute or

regulation, even where a claimant may have relied in good faith on an improper authorization

to his detriment.  Russell (citing Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380,

384-85 (1947)); Joseph B. McGill, Jr., GSBCA 15783-RELO, 02-2 BCA   31,990.  We are

sympathetic with Mr. Churchill's plight, and recognize that it is unfortunate that claimant

cannot be paid under these circumstances.  Nonetheless, this long-standing and well-

established rule serves the taxpayers' interest in not having unlawful disbursement made from

public funds.  Karl E. Serbousek, GSBCA 15950-RELO, 03-1 BCA   32,125 (2002); McGill.





                             Decision



     The claim is denied.









                                   _________________________________

                                   CATHERINE B. HYATT

                                   Board Judge