November 21, 1996
                                                  


                             GSBCA 13680-RELO


                    In the Matter of CHESLEY E. KIMBREL


     Chesley E. Kimbrel, APO Area Europe, Claimant.

     William E. Allan, Chief, Finance and Accounting Liaison
Office, Directorate of Support Services, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Denver Center, Denver, CO, appearing for
Department of Defense.

DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman).

     The Department of the Air Force transferred Chesley E.
Kimbrel, one of its logistics management specialists, from a
permanent duty station at Travis Air Force Base, California, to a
new permanent duty station at RAF Mildenhall, in the United
Kingdom.  Mr. Kimbrel's travel orders authorize him to be
reimbursed for real estate expenses incurred in connection with
this move.  Within a few months of moving, Mr. Kimbrel sold his
residence in California and purchased a house in the United
Kingdom, and then claimed expenses incurred in making these
transactions.  The Air Force denied his claim.

     Mr. Kimbrel maintains that the authorization for reimbursement
of real estate expenses was a factor in his decision to sell the
home in California and the "sole factor" in his determination to
use a real estate agent to sell the house.  (The brokerage fees
associated with the sale constitute more than half of the amount
claimed.)  He states that he bought a house in England "primarily
[because of] the lack of and cost of rentals in England and the
fact that Civilians are not authorized to live on base at RAF
Mildenhall."

     The Air Force acted properly in denying this claim.  By
regulation, the Government may not reimburse an employee for
expenses required to be paid by him in connection with a sale or
purchase associated with a transfer of permanent duty stations if
the old station is within the United States (or any of a few other
specified places) and the new one is not.  Reimbursement is
possible only if both stations are within the United States (or the
other specified locations) or, in a more limited set of
circumstances, if the old station is in a "foreign area" (the rest
of the world) and the new one is in the United States or one of the
specified places.  41 CFR 302-6.1(a), (g) (1994); JTR C14000-A.1,
-C.

     Mr. Kimbrel's contention, at least as to the sale of his
California house, is that the Air Force should be estopped from
denying his claim.  The argument meets the conditions for equitable
estoppel: the agency knew that it was transferring the claimant
from the United States to another country, and it authorized
reimbursement of real estate expenses with the expectation that he
would incur such costs; the claimant, not knowing that this
authorization was impermissible, relied on it to his detriment by
entering into two transactions and thereby assuming financial
obligations.  See Kozak Micro Systems, Inc., GSBCA 10519, 91-1 BCA
 23,342, at 117,060 (citing USA Petroleum Corp. v. United States,
821 F.2d 622, 625 (Fed. Cir. 1987); American Electronic
Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 774 F.2d 1110, 1113 (Fed. Cir.
1985); Emeco Industries, Inc. v. United States, 485 F.2d 652, 657
(Ct. Cl. 1973)), aff'd, 989 F.2d 1201 (table) (Fed. Cir. 1993).

     Estoppel will not lie against the Government, however, where
the promise involves a commitment which is not permitted by law. 
Regardless of the equities of any particular situation, an employee
may not usurp control over public funds by binding the Government
to spend money in violation of statute or regulation.  Kevin S.
Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, slip op. at 5-6 (Nov. 8, 1996) (citing
Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990);
Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)). 
Thus, Mr. Kimbrel may not receive reimbursement for the real estate
expenses he incurred in connection with his transfer from
California to the United Kingdom, even though the Air Force
authorized that reimbursement, because the authorization was
contrary to law.

     Experiences like this one may show that Government agencies
need to provide to personnel who authorize transfers better
training regarding the kinds of expenses which may be reimbursable
in various circumstances, so that employees will not be misled in
the future as to their potential benefits.  These experiences do
not give us any license to allow repayment to employees who have
already been misled, however.




                                   _________________________
                                   STEPHEN M. DANIELS
                                   Board Judge