July 18, 1997 GSBCA 14092-RELO In the Matter of MICHAEL D. ADDINGTON Michael D. Addington, APO Area Europe, Claimant. Gloria A. Rumsey, Chief-FYCC, Directorate of Debt & Claims Management, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Denver, CO, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). On May 3, 1995, Michael D. Addington received orders transferring him on or about July 5, 1995, from the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Texas, to a Defense Department facility in Kaiserslautern, Germany. He entered into a contract with a Texarkana realtor under which the realtor would find a tenant to rent the Addington home for a one-year period. The realtor found a tenant, with whom Mr. Addington signed a lease; Mr. Addington paid the realtor an agreed-upon commission of $695 for this service. He also sold his washing machine and dryer, and his automobile, in anticipation of the move. One week before the transfer was to occur, the agency canceled Mr. Addington's orders. According to the claimant, his commanding officer told him that he would be reimbursed for expenses he incurred due to the cancellation. Mr. Addington then terminated the lease of his home and rented a washer and dryer and a car. Within a month, the claimant received new orders transferring him to Germany on August 8, 1995. Mr. Addington asked the Department of Defense to reimburse him for three expenses he had incurred as a result of the change in orders: the realtor's commission ($695), the charge for renting the washer and dryer ($82.97), and the charge for renting the car. The agency paid only the last of these charges. Mr. Addington claims that he is entitled to payment for the first two as well. The law is clear that when an agency orders an employee to change permanent duty stations in the interest of the Government, and the employee then incurs relocation expenses of a kind for which reimbursement is authorized, the employee should be reimbursed for those expenses. JTR C4102. Even if the orders are later rescinded, expenses which were incurred while they were in effect are reimbursable. JTR C3054. Payments of realtor's commissions for renting an employee's house, and for rental of household appliances, are not among those relocation expenses for which reimbursement is authorized by statute or regulation, however. In other words, if Mr. Addington had moved to Germany in accordance with his original orders, these costs would not have been reimbursable. Thus, even though we recognize that Mr. Addington would not have incurred the costs but for the Defense Department's issuance and rescission of his original orders, we cannot find authority within the laws governing relocation of federal employees for directing the agency to pay the expenses. Joseph A. Curtis, GSBCA 13823-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,935. This conclusion must hold even if the employee's commanding officer promised repayment, since a Government official may not obligate the Government to spend money in violation of statute or regulation. Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA  28,688 (1996) (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990), and Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)). In paying the costs that Mr. Addington incurred for rental of an automobile, the Defense Department has apparently concluded that another law provides authority for the agency to reimburse costs which resulted from the agency's about-face regarding the claimant's transfer to Germany. Whether such a law exists, and if it does, whether it differentiates among expenses in the way reflected by the agency's decision to pay for the car rental charges, but not the washer and dryer rental charges or the realtor's commission, are questions which are beyond our purview to answer. Mary E. Plumb, GSBCA 14215-RELO (July 14, 1997). _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge