________________________________________ July 14, 1997 ________________________________________ GSBCA 13821-RELO In the Matter of MICHAEL L. MARTIN Michael L. Martin, c/o Social Security Administration, Frederick, MD, Claimant. J. Patrick O Toole, Director, Division of Travel Management, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for Social Security Administration. BORWICK, Board Judge. Michael L. Martin, claimant, a claims representative with the Social Security Administration (SSA), seeks reimbursement of relocation expenses he incurred in the sale of his ex-wife's house. The SSA denied the claim and claimant appealed to the General Accounting Office (GAO). For the reasons stated below, claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of the expenses. On March 7, 1995, claimant was authorized a permanent change of duty station (PCS) from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Frederick, Maryland. His duty reporting date was August 21. Claimant's PCS orders assumed that claimant would be reimbursed for sale expenses of the house at 210 Stanbridge Road, Holmes, Pennsylvania. On November 11, 1995, claimant submitted a voucher for $1,649.80, which represented one-half of the settlement expenses of selling that house. The Branch Manager of the Frederick office of the SSA questioned whether claimant met the residency requirement for reimbursement. At one time claimant and his spouse were residing at 210 Stanbridge Road. Well before the transfer, claimant divorced his spouse and had been living apart from her since their divorce. Claimant's payroll records showed his residence to be the Shirely Court apartments, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. Claimant commuted to work on a daily basis from these apartments. The agency denied claimant's request for reimbursement of settlement expenses of the house, determining that the house was not his residence at the time of claimant's relocation to Frederick, Maryland. Claimant filed a reclaim voucher, alleging that from February until July 1995, claimant maintained two residences, one at 210 Stanbridge Road, and the other at the Shirely Court apartments. Claimant also maintained that he was assured by the Philadelphia regional office staff that full closing costs would be covered if he accepted a voluntary transfer. Under the the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), an employee is entitled to reimbursement of allowable expenses for the sale of one residence at the employee's old duty station. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (1994). Residence means the "residence or other quarters from which the employee regularly commutes from work." 41 CFR 302- 1.4(k), incorporated by 41 CFR 302-6.1(b)). There is also a time requirement. An employee must have occupied the dwelling at the time the employee is first officially notified by competent authority of the employee's transfer to the new official station. 41 CFR 302-6.1(d). Here, at the time of notification of his transfer, claimant regularly commuted from his apartment complex in Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. He was not living in his ex-wife's house. Claimant is not entitled to reimbursement of the settlement expenses of the house at 210 Stanbridge Court, Holmes, Pennsylvania, because that house was not his residence as defined by the FTR at the time he was notified of his transfer. Claimant says that he was assured by officials is SSA's Philadelphia office that he would receive full closing costs. Even if we construe that statement as superior authority's promise for the agency to reimburse claimant for the settlement expenses he incurred in selling the house in Holmes, Pennsylvania, the Government is not bound by the promise. That promise cannot bind the Government to spend money in violation of statute or regulation. Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (1996). __________________________ ANTHONY S. BORWICK Board Judge