Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405









                     _______________________



                          July 31, 2002

                     _______________________





                         GSBCA 15783-RELO





              In the Matter of JOSEPH B. McGILL, JR.   





     Joseph B. McGill, Jr., Springfield, VA, Claimant.



     Karen S. Gillett, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, Department of the Army, Fort

Belvoir, VA, appearing for Department of the Army.



WILLIAMS, Board Judge.



     A new appointee who has relocated to accept employment with the Government is not

entitled to reimbursement of real estate expenses.



                            Background



     Effective June 4, 2001, claimant, Joseph B. McGill, Jr., was hired as an operations

research analyst for the Department of the Army, Center for Army Analysis (CAA).  He was

offered the job while still in graduate school in State College, Pennsylvania, and he relocated

after the completion of his classes.  Claimant was advised that reimbursement of real estate

expenses would be granted, and CAA issued travel orders to Mr. McGill that authorized

reimbursement of real estate expenses in conjunction with his move from State College to

Fort Belvoir.



     In November 2001, Mr. McGill and his fiancee purchased a home in Springfield,

Virginia, and he subsequently filed a claim for reimbursement of real estate expenses.  The

agency denied reimbursement because he was not entitled to this benefit as a new appointee.



                            Discussion



     It is well established that, by statute, only certain limited expenses may be authorized

in connection with the relocation of a new appointee.  5 U.S.C.   5723 (2000).  Such limited

expenses do not include reimbursement of real estate transaction expenses.  Id.



     Regulations implementing these statutes confirm that new hires may not receive any

allowances for real estate transactions.  41 CFR   302-1.10(f) (2000); Joint Travel

Regulations (JTR) C 14001-1.  Applying these clear statutory and regulatory provisions, the

Board has consistently denied claims of new appointees for reimbursement of real estate

expenses.  E.g., Larry Smith, GSBCA 15686-RELO, 02-1 BCA   31,692; Barry McGuire,

GSBCA 15346-RELO, 01-1 BCA   31,343; John B. Smith, GSBCA 15319-RELO, 01-1

BCA   31,338; Debra Jo Dyer, GSBCA 15411-RELO (Feb. 8, 2001); Mukesh Nigam,

GSBCA 15140-RELO, 00-1 BCA   30,821; Wendy Castineira, GSBCA 15092-RELO, 00-1

BCA   30,740 (1999); Karen R. Brown, GSBCA 14871-RELO, 99-2 BCA   30,429;

Charles G. Bakaly, III, GSBCA 14750-RELO, 99-1 BCA   30,249, reconsideration denied,

99-1 BCA   30,367.



     We recognize that claimant's travel orders did, in fact, authorize real estate expenses. 

Such authorization, however, is of no effect since it is clearly contrary to statute and

regulation.  McGuire.  It is well established that the Government may not 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.  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)).  While it is unfortunate that claimant cannot be paid under these circumstances,

taxpayers' interest is served in not having unlawful disbursement made from public funds. 

McGuire.



                             Decision



     The claim is denied.





                                   ________________________________

                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS

                                   Board Judge