Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ____________________ May 27, 1998 ____________________ GSBCA 14232-RELO In the Matter of CHARLES T. LOVERDI Charles T. Loverdi, Sharon Hill, PA, Claimant. Jerome A. Snyder, Norfolk Naval Shipyard Detachment, Department of the Navy, Philadelphia, PA, appearing for Department of the Navy. WILLIAMS, Board Judge. Claimant, Charles T. Loverdi, a former employee of the closed Philadelphia Naval Shipyard (PNSY), has filed a claim seeking to have the Government purchase his home in the Philadelphia area under the Guaranteed Homesale Service (GHS) of the Defense Relocation Service for Employees (DRSE) program. Although an agency employee mistakenly advised claimant that he was eligible for the DRSE program and later retracted such advice, this error does not entitle claimant to participation in the program. Because claimant's employing agency, the Department of the Navy, did not exercise its discretionary authority to enter into a contract for relocation services, there is no basis on which claimant can be accepted into such a program. There is no statute or regulatory authority which requires that the agency offer relocation services to its employees. Therefore, claimant's request that the Board direct the agency to honor his application for participation in the DRSE program is denied. Background Claimant, a mechanical engineer, was employed at PNSY when that base was closed on September 15, 1995, pursuant to the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990. Between 1993 and 1995, approximately 1,329 employees were successfully placed in other jobs, and 820 were relocated outside of the Philadelphia area. The commander of the PNSY considered participating in the DRSE program, but elected not to participate in this optional program because of the large number of employees expected to be relocated, the resultant cost associated with these moves, and the availability of permanent change of station entitlements under the applicable regulations. Claimant received priority consideration for vacancies outside the Philadelphia area, and he was placed in the Public Works Center at the Washington Navy Yard.[foot #] 1 Claimant's travel orders in connection with his permanent change of station from Philadelphia to the Washington Navy Yard were issued on September 12, 1995. Those travel orders indicated that reimbursement for shipment of claimant's household goods, temporary quarters subsistence expenses, certain real estate expenses, and a househunting trip were also authorized. The total real estate expenses authorized were estimated to be $15,000. In December 1996, claimant contacted the comptroller's office in the Post Closure Residual Function of the Former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and asked about his entitlement to DRSE and GHS programs. A management analyst in that office contacted the sponsor of the DRSE program, the Army Corps of Engineers, obtained an application, and advised claimant to complete the form. On December 23, 1996, claimant presented the completed form and an appraisal of his home. The form was sent to the Washington Navy Yard for processing through the Army Corps of Engineers. On January 17, 1997, this management analyst learned that PNSY former employees were not eligible for the DRSE program and orally advised claimant on that same date. Claimant was never advised of this in writing. None of the 820 employees relocating as a result of the PNSY closure received benefits under the DRSE program since the Shipyard's commander had elected not to participate in that program. Discussion Statute authorizes reimbursement for certain relocation expenses when an employee is transferred. Expenses related to the sale of the residence at the old duty station and the purchase of a home at the new station are permitted. 5 U.S.C. 5724a (1994). The statute in effect at the time of claimant's transfer expressly provides that: ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 PNSY paid $25,000 in voluntary separation incentive payment to the Washington Navy Yard so that an employee there could retire and create a vacancy for claimant. Claimant retained his previous grade and pay. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Under such circumstances 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).[foot #] 2 Thus, the statute on its face permits, but does not require, agencies to arrange for the purchase of a transferred employee's residence. The Administrator of General Services has promulgated regulations which confirm that the agency's decision whether or not to enter into a contract for relocation services is discretionary, not mandatory. 41 CFR 302-12.12 (1996). The Department of Defense (DOD) has adopted similar provisions in its Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). JTR C15001 establishes that it is the responsibility of each DOD component to determine whether and to what extent relocation services will be offered to its employees. In addition, the Comptroller General has held that the benefit of a relocation services contract is discretionary. Kevin M. Cole, B-231099 (Dec. 2, 1988). Claimant's travel orders were consistent with applicable regulations in that they authorized him to recover real estate expenses, but not relocation services whereby his home would be purchased. The fact that the Navy's management analyst provided erroneous advice and gave claimant an application for the program does not alter this result. The Board has consistently held that erroneous authorization of benefits does not itself entitle an employee to the benefits sought where there is no legal basis for entitlement. E.g., Chester R. Jourdan, Jr., GSBCA 13868-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,020, at 144,566 n.2; William Achilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,799, at 143,645. Decision The claim is denied. ________________________________ MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 2 This statute was amended by Pub. L. No. 104-201, 110 Stat. 2755, 2759 (1996), effective 180 days after September 23, 1996, which continues to provide that an agency's decision to enter into relocation contracts is discretionary, not mandatory. Section 5724c now reads, in pertinent part: "[E]ach agency may enter into contracts to provide relocation services to agencies and employees."