_________________________

                        November 25, 1996
                    _________________________


                         GSBCA 13701-RELO


                  In the Matter of JOHN J. CODY


     John J. Cody, Groton, CT, Claimant.

     G. A. Terrill and Judy Hughes, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of
Defense.

WILLIAMS, Board Judge.

     Claimant was transferred from Seattle, Washington, to
Kaneohe, Hawaii, over four years ago.  At the time of his
transfer, claimant did not sell his home in Seattle and did
not request reimbursement for his closing costs.  Now, in
conjunction with his transfer from Hawaii to Connecticut,
claimant seeks reimbursement of the closing costs on the sale
of his residence in Seattle.

     The agency has denied the claim on the ground that the
closing costs related to the sale of the Seattle residence are
not incident to his current transfer; the agency points out
that, under applicable regulations, claimant had two years
within which to sell the Seattle residence following his
transfer from that location.  Further, the agency points out
that claimant could have applied for an additional year within
which to sell his residence, but did not do so.  Claimant
argues that he was expressly advised by experts in the travel
payment offices in Seattle and Pearl Harbor that he could wait
until his tour of duty in Hawaii was over to sell the Seattle
home because Hawaii was considered an overseas post of duty.

     For the reasons stated below, we deny the claim and
sustain the agency's position.

                            Background

     On February 24, 1992, the Assistant for Career Services,
Naval Investigative Service (NIS), issued Request and
Authorization for DOD Civilian Permanent Duty Travel, Form DD
1614, to John J. Cody, a criminal investigator at NIS.  Mr.
Cody was then stationed in Seattle, Washington, and was
transferred to Kaneohe, Hawaii.  His reporting date at the new
station was May 1992.

     In conjunction with his relocation, claimant was awarded
expenses for temporary quarters subsistence, per diem, travel,
and transportation for himself and his three dependents. 
Claimant did not request that he be reimbursed for the closing
costs associated with the sale of his home in Seattle because
he decided not to sell the home at the time of his transfer to
Hawaii due to the depressed real estate market.  He was
advised by the Personnel Support Detachments (PSDs) in both
Seattle and Pearl Harbor that he could postpone the sale of
his home in Seattle until such time as he was transferred to
another duty station in the continental United States under
the provisions of the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR),
paragraph C14000-3 (now C14000-A).  He was told that Hawaii
was considered an overseas post of duty.

     In February 1996, claimant was advised that he was being
transferred to New London, Connecticut.  Claimant requested
that he be reimbursed for his closing costs and expenses
incident to the sale of his permanent residence in Seattle,
Washington, in his 1996 permanent change of station (PCS)
orders.  He explained:

     During the course of my PCS move from Washington to
     Hawaii in 1992, I specifically did not utilize the
     privilege [of claiming costs associated with selling
     the home] due to the soft real estate market in the
     Silverdale, Washington, area and the exorbitant cost
     of purchasing a home in Hawaii.  I was advised by
     PSD personnel in Seattle that this decision was a
     viable one and I could defer this process to the PCS
     orders I [would] receive to return to CONUS [the
     continental United States].

     In a memorandum dated March 19, 1996, the Deputy
Assistant Director for Career Services at the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service advised the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (DFAS) that he was aware of no basis for
reimbursing the claimant for his closing costs.  He stated:

     Specifically, Mr. Cody should have sold his
     residence in Seattle subsequent to his receipt of
     PCS orders to Kaneohe, Hawaii.  Furthermore, we are
     aware that Mr. Cody should have completed his real
     estate expenses in accordance with the JTR.

     . . . Please note Mr. Cody's PCS orders did not
     include real estate entitlements.  However, this
     activity has no objection to reimbursement of real
     estate expenses if legally practicable.

     On March 26, 1996, the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service, Columbus Center (DFAS, Columbus), forwarded
Mr. Cody's claim to the United States General Accounting
Office (GAO).[Foot # 1 ]  In its submission to GAO, the DFAS, Columbus
stated:

     It has been four years since SA Cody transferred to
     Hawaii.  Therefore, he has no entitlement to
     reimbursement of his closing costs in connection
     with the sale of his home in Seattle, Washington. 
     It is regrettable that SA Cody was erroneously
     advised concerning his entitlement to real estate
     expenses.  However, we find no legal basis for
     allowing his claim.  SA Cody has requested a
     determination from your office as to whether his
     claim may be allowed since he was following the
     expert advice from the Travel Payment Offices at
     PSDs, Seattle and Pearl Harbor.

****************** Footnote Begin **********
[Foot # 1 ] Congress transferred administrative responsibility 
for claims  settlement functions set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3702 
to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-53, § 211(a), 
109 Stat. 514, 535 (1995).  The Director of OMB delegated certain 
of these functions to the Administrator of General Services, who 
redelegated the settlement functions pertaining to travel and 
relocation expense claims by federal civilian employees to the 
General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA).  
Pursuant to this authority, on July 17, 1996, the instant case was 
transferred to the GSBCA.
****************** Footnote End ************

                            Discussion

     In disallowing this claim, the agency relied upon
Paragraph C14000 of the JTR, the Department of Defense
regulations which implement and supplement the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR).  This provision is consistent with the FTR,
41 CFR 302-6.1 (1995).  These regulations specify that
reimbursement for closing costs may be made within a period
"not later than two years after the date that the employee
reported for duty at the new official station."  41 CFR
302-6.1(e)(1); JTR C14000-B.  Both the FTR and the JTR also
provide that the two-year time limit for completion of the
sale and purchase transactions may be extended by the head of
the agency or his or her designee "for an additional period of
time not to exceed one year."  Id.

     The Comptroller General has consistently held that there
is no authority for the reimbursement of expenses incurred in
connection with the sale or purchase of an employee's home,
regardless of the extenuating circumstances involved, if the
employee has failed to meet the applicable time limitation. 
Thomas L. Chapman, B-230880 (Dec. 12, 1988); Gregory McGruder,
B-227587 (Sept. 3, 1987).

     For the purpose of the FTR and JTR provisions governing
real estate transactions, Hawaii is treated the same as all
other states.  41 CFR 302-6.1(a); JTR C14000-A.1.  Thus, as
claimant now does not dispute, claimant received erroneous
advice that Hawaii could be considered an overseas tour of
duty enabling him to sell his Seattle home upon completion of
that tour of duty and to request reimbursement for expenses in
conjunction with that sale later.  Unfortunately, the fact
that claimant was misinformed by government officials provides
no legal basis for the payment of a claim for which there is
no authority.  E.g., Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO
(Nov. 8, 1996).  While we appreciate the inconvenience that
the erroneous advice may have caused claimant, it is a well
settled rule of law that the Government cannot be bound by the
erroneous advice or action of its agents.  Id.

     In addition, because the residence in Seattle is not
located at the duty station from which he is now being
transferred (Hawaii), claimant is not entitled to
reimbursement for residential sales expenses on that house. 
Willis Norlund, B-257724 (Mar. 24, 1995).  Because there is no
legal basis for reimbursement of expenses in conjunction with
the sale of the Seattle residence at this point in time, the
claim must be denied.



                                   __________________________
                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS
                                   Board Judge