April 5, 2007


                          CBCA 600-RELO


                 In the Matter of BETH A. WILSON


     Beth A. Wilson, Bloomingburg, OH, Claimant.

     Judy Hughes, Travel Mission Area, Standards and Compliance, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of
Defense.

GOODMAN, Board Judge.

     Claimant is a civilian employee of the Department of the Army.  She has requested
that this Board review the agency's denial of reimbursement of certain expenses she incurred
when she accomplished a permanent change of station (PCS) move.

                       Factual Background
                                
     On August 21, 2006, claimant was issued travel orders to accomplish a PCS move
from her duty station at the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), Dayton,
Ohio, to DFAS, Columbus, Ohio.  In January 2006 she and her spouse had entered into a
land installment contract to purchase a house in Dayton.  The contract stated that the
purchase price was $106,900; that the purchasers were to make a non-refundable down
payment of $12,900 to the seller; and that for one year thereafter they were to make interest-
only payments followed by a balloon payment of the balance to the seller, or make
arrangements with the seller for refinancing for another year with a balloon payment at the
end of the second year.  Claimant and her husband did not pay the $12,900 down payment
in full at the inception of the contract, but entered into a promissory note with the seller for
this amount.  According to claimant, it was her understanding that if she did not fulfill the
contract, she would remain liable to the seller for the $12,900 down payment.
     DFAS, in its submission to this Board, states that: 

     Before accepting the transfer to Columbus, Ms. Wilson contacted the DFAS
     Human Resources Office to question whether she would be allowed
     reimbursement of the cost she would incur to break the land installment
     contract on the home she was purchasing.  The Human Resources Office
     erroneously determined that although Ms. Wilson was not leasing the home,
     the expense would be allowed as an unexpired lease expense.  Ms. Wilson
     accepted the transfer to Columbus in good faith reliance on the information
     she received, and the PCS orders were issued authorizing . . . unexpired lease
     expenses.

     Relying upon the erroneous advice of the DFAS Human Resources Office, claimant
notified the seller that she intended to vacate the house, and the seller notified her that the
total costs she would incur as the result of not fulfilling her contractual obligations would
be $15,882.65.  Claimant transferred in August 2006 and submitted a travel voucher
requesting reimbursement of $15,882.65.  The agency reimbursed claimant $236.80 and
denied reimbursement of $15,645.85, based upon its determination that these costs were
incurred neither from an unexpired lease nor from the sale of a home at the old duty station. 

                            Discussion
               
     When an agency transfers an employee from one permanent duty station to another,
various statutes and regulations authorize the agency to reimburse the employee for
relocation expenses.  The statutes and regulations provide an agency shall pay an employee
who transfers in the interest of the Government for expenses of the sale of the residence (or
the settlement of an unexpired lease) of the employee at the old official station and the
purchase of a residence at the new official station.  5 U.S.C.  5724a(d)(1) (2000); 41 CFR
302.11-1 (2006); JTR C14000.

     The costs which claimant owed the seller when she failed to fulfill the land
installment contract were incurred as a down payment when she entered into the contract. 
She did not sell the house when she transferred; rather she relinquished her rights to the
property.  Claimant is therefore not entitled to reimbursement of these costs as a real estate
transaction sale expense.  As she did not enter into a lease for the home, these costs cannot
be deemed costs arising from an unexpired lease as she was erroneously advised.  See, e.g.,
Jacqueline S. Ferguson, GSBCA 16351-RELO, 04-1 BCA  32,618; Samuel G. Baker. 
While her travel orders authorized reimbursement of unexpired lease expenses, there were
no such expenses to reimburse.

     The agency admits that claimant acted in reliance on erroneous advice.  Even so, 
such erroneous advice cannot enlarge a claimant's entitlements as defined by statute and
regulation nor can it obligate the Government to make payment of monies that are not
authorized by statute and regulation.  Suzanne S. Lowe, GSBCA 16696-RELO, 06-1 BCA
 33,202.

                            Decision

     The claim is denied.


                                   ___________________________________
                                   ALLAN H. GOODMAN
                                   Board Judge