__________________ August 29, 1997 __________________ GSBCA 14040-RELO, 14041-RELO In the Matters of RHONDA L. DOX, BERYL L. GILLARD Rhonda L. Dox, O'Fallon, IL, Claimant in GSBCA 14040-RELO. Beryl L. Gillard, Fairview Heights, IL, Claimant in GSBCA 14041-RELO. Leonard Hardy, Deputy Administrator for Operations & Management, Rural Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Agriculture. NEILL, Board Judge. Claimants are employees of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). They were recently selected for positions at the agency s newly established Centralized Service Center (CSC) in St. Louis, Missouri. They are asking that the agency provide them with relocation service program benefits in conjunction with their transfer to the new CSC office. These benefits normally would have been available to relocating employees under agency regulations. Nevertheless, as part of the planning for establishment and staffing of the new CSC, that particular provision of the agency regulations was suspended temporarily by the agency's Deputy Secretary. Claimants contend that they were unaware of this fact when they elected to relocate to St. Louis. Claimants contend that because agency officials did not apprise them of this fact until after they arrival at their new work station, the relocation services program benefits should be extended to them. We find nothing in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) which supports these claims. The claims are, therefore, denied. Background In early March 1996, the Department of Agriculture s Under Secretary for Rural Economic Community Development (RECD) signed two memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with union representatives. Both MOUs addressed restructuring issues within the RECD. The first concerned a reduction in force. The second concerned staffing issues relating to the agency's ongoing restructuring effort. In the area of staffing, agency management and union representatives were particularly concerned with the establishment and staffing of the CSC in St. Louis, where approximately 600 positions were to be filled by as many current agency employees as possible. The MOU regarding staffing states: In keeping with the need to provide relocation incentives to the greatest number of current RECD employees from outside of St. Louis, and to stay within the limits of appropriated funds, the Under Secretary will request the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to grant a time-limited waiver to its policy of mandatory relocation service program entitlements. The intent is to ensure that relocation funds are available to as many in-bound employees as possible for standard moving expenses, avoiding high costs charged by commercial interstate relocation service companies for the purchase of houses. The assumption is that RECD employees can find suitable local realtors to sell their current homes, and will find an ample supply of housing options in St. Louis via local realtors there, thus providing cost savings. Once the two MOUs were signed, copies were sent to all RECD employees by the RECD Under Secretary. In a cover letter to the employees, he urged them to review the MOUs carefully since they introduce "some new ideas and concepts." In April 1996, the Under Secretary for RECD, as planned, sent forward to the Deputy Secretary a request for a time-limited waiver of the Department's policy of mandatory relocation service program entitlements. This waiver request applied only to employees being transferred to the CSC in St. Louis. On April 5, 1996, the Deputy Secretary approved the request. The reasons given in the decision memorandum supporting this action are essentially those already set out in the earlier MOU quoted above. By letter dated April 19, 1996, the Director of the agency's Support Services Division sent a copy of the executed waiver to all Rural Development State Directors and National Office Officials. His cover letter read: The Deputy Secretary has recently approved a waiver for the Rural Development mission area concerning the use of relocation services funds. Please assure that employees are made aware of the attached memorandum. During the summer of 1996, Ms. Dox and Ms. Gillard were selected for positions at the CSC. Shortly after selection they signed service agreements and returned them to the CSC personnel office in St. Louis. They also at this time provided that office with executed Requests for Authorization to Incur Transfer Expenses. No travel authorization, however, was issued prior to their moves to St. Louis. In its report to us, the agency explains that, because of the volume of relocations being handled at the time of the initial staffing of the CSC, the decision was made to issue travel authorizations centrally at St. Louis. The authorizations were prepared using the data provided in the requests for authorization. They were issued after the employees arrived in St. Louis but bore the date of the service agreement signed by the employee prior to the start of his or her relocation. Both claimants contend that they knew nothing of the decision by the Deputy Secretary to waive or suspend the right to relocation services program benefits for employees transferring to the CSC. Upon selection, both were told that information regarding relocation would be provided by the CSC personnel office. Ms. Dox received nothing until after her reporting date in St. Louis. At that time she was given the "Spring 1995" edition of a publication entitled "RECD Employee Relocation Handbook." The handbook expressly states on page 21 that relocation service program benefits such as the home purchase service are available. When Ms. Dox then requested forms to apply for these benefits, she was told that they had been waived for employees transferring to the CSC. Unlike Ms. Dox, Ms. Gillard received her copy of the handbook in the mail after selection but prior to her move. On reviewing it, she determined that the home purchase service was available. On arrival in St. Louis, however, she promptly learned during the initial orientation that the home purchase service was not available to employees transferring to the CSC. Claimants believe for several reasons that they should receive the relocation services program benefits normally provided to agency employees. First, they contend that they were unaware of the Deputy Secretary's decision to suspend the benefits for employees transferring to the CSC. Second, information regarding job opportunities at the CSC did not advise prospective applicants that these benefits were not available. Finally, the relocation information provided to them by the CSC personnel office was incorrect and misleading. The agency rejected the claims of Ms. Dox and Ms. Gillard on the ground that it would be unfair to grant their requests when all other employees transferring to the CSC have not been given the benefits these claimants seek. Furthermore, the agency is of the opinion that it took all reasonable steps to inform employees of the change in policy regarding the availability of relocation services program benefits. Claimants have now requested that the Board resolve this matter. Discussion The statutory provision regarding relocation services which was in effect at the time claimants relocated to St. Louis read: Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, each agency is authorized to enter into contracts to provide relocation services to agencies and employees for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this subchapter. Such services include but need not be limited to arranging for the purchase of a transferred employee's residence. 5 U.S.C.  5724c (1994). Regulations implementing this provision have been issued by the Administrator of General Services in the FTR. 41 CFR 302-12. Of particular importance to this case is the provision which reads: It is the responsibility of each agency head, or his/her designee, to determine whether, or to what extent, and under what conditions relocation services will be made available to employees transferring within the agency and those transferred between agencies. This determination will be made based on an analysis of the agency's relocation needs, availability of funds, and in accordance with this part. Id. 302-12.3. Under statute, it is clearly within the discretion of each agency to determine whether it will or will not provide relocation services to its employees. Under the FTR this determination is to be made by the agency head or his/her designee bearing in mind the various considerations that are relevant to the situation. In the USDA, the determination was initially made that these services should be made available. For the staffing of the newly established CSC, however, a subsequent decision was made to suspend these entitlements on a temporary basis. We can find nothing in the record before us which suggests that this subsequent waiver or suspension of the benefits was not done by a properly authorized official or for considerations other than those specified in the FTR. We conclude, therefore, that the waiver of the relocation services program benefits was valid and in effect at the time claimants relocated to St. Louis. The authority to grant these benefits was, therefore, effectively curtailed. Consequently, relocation services were simply not available for claimants at that time. If travel orders had been issued authorizing these benefits, this would have availed claimants nothing. Similarly, incorrect advice from the CSC personnel office cannot overcome this same lack of authority any more than personal misunderstanding or lack of personal notice can. This is a hard doctrine for many, both in and out of Government, to accept. Nevertheless, it is well established that, despite any equitable considerations that may run to the contrary, Government officials may not spend or authorize the expenditure of money when the authority to do so is lacking. See Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (1996), and cases cited therein. It is true that, in this case, the authority does rest with the agency head or his designee to authorize an exception. The Deputy Secretary could conceivably rescind his waiver for the two claimants. After an examination of the extenuating circumstances, however, the agency has determined that an exception would be inappropriate. We will not interfere with this determination. Upon review of this case, we have concluded that the Deputy Secretary s determination to suspend temporarily the relocation services program benefits was taken in accordance with statute and applicable provisions of the FTR. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that we can find no basis under the FTR for granting relief which would be based upon the fact that the agency, for reasonable cause, chooses not to modify this determination. Decision The claims of Ms. Dox and Ms. Gillard are denied. ____________________ EDWIN B. NEILL Board Judge