Board of Contract Appeals
                    General Services Administration
                         Washington, D.C. 20405
                              ____________
 
                             June 30, 1998
                              ____________
 
                            GSBCA 14544-RELO
 
                  In the Matter of PETER A. GIAMMANCO
 
 
        Peter A. Giammanco, Burlington, VT, Claimant.
        Judy  Hughes, Travel Policy,  Defense Finance and Accounting
   Service, Columbus Center, Columbus, OH,  appearing for Department
   of Defense.
 
   VERGILIO, Board Judge.
             In  selling his residence at the old duty station,
        the relocated claimant utilized a broker and separately
        incurred advertising costs  in attempting  to sell  the
        residence himself.   He  received compensation  for the
        broker fees incurred when  the broker successfully sold
        the residence.  The claimant is not entitled to recover
        the separate advertising costs, which did not result in
        lower broker fees.   The claimant has  not demonstrated
        that the sum  of the broker fees  and advertising costs
        represent  a reasonable or customary amount to incur in
        selling the residence in the locality.
 
        With a reporting date in early September 1996, the claimant,
   Peter  Giammanco, as  a civilian  employee of  the Department  of
   Defense,  changed  duty   stations.    In  connection   with  the
   relocation,  the agency  authorized  the  claimant  to  sell  the
   residence  at  his old  duty  station  in  Bay Shore,  New  York.
   Although he utilized  a real estate broker, he  also attempted to
   sell the  residence on his own.   In October 1997,  the residence
   was sold through the broker.  The claimant incurred broker costs,
   for  which  he  was  reimbursed.    He  seeks  to  be  reimbursed
   advertising costs of $2,441.55, which he  incurred apart from the
   broker fees in seeking to sell the residence himself.  The broker
   fees were not reduced because the claimant advertised on his own,
   although  the broker  would have  received  a lesser  fee if  the
   claimant  (without the broker)  had been successful  in finding a
   buyer.  The agency denied reimbursement.
 
        Statute permits the  Government to pay an  employee expenses
   incurred in  the sale  of a  residence at  the old  duty station.
   However,  the reimbursement for brokerage fees and other expenses
   may not  exceed those customarily  charged in the  locality where
   the  residence is  located.   5  U.S.C.   5724a(a)(4)(A)  (1994).
   Regulations, which implement  the statute, specify that  costs of
   newspaper, bulletin  board, multiple-listing services,  and other
   advertising for sale of the residence at the old official station
   are reimbursable if  the employee has not paid  for such services
   in the form of a broker's fee or real estate  agent's commission.
   41  CFR   302-6.2(b)  (1996);  Department  of   Defense  Civilian
   Personnel Joint Travel Regulations (JTR) C140002-A.2.
 
        The   claimant  maintains  that,  in  conjunction  with  his
   relocation, he was given by the agency and he read a Pamphlet for
   Permanent Change of Station (PCS), Defense Finance and Accounting
   Service,   Columbus  Center,   DFAS-CO  7000.1-PH   (Aug.  1995).
   Regarding  allowable expenses  for the  sale of a  residence, the
   pamphlet  states (on  page 22) that  the "following  expenses are
   typically reimbursable when reasonable in amount  and customarily
   paid by the seller  in the locale where the property is situated:
   1.  Broker's fees or  Realtor commission[;] 2.  Other advertising
   and selling  expenses (i.e. newspaper, bulletin  board, multiple-
   listing services, etc.)[.]"
 
 
        The agency has  disallowed the reimbursement here  at issue.
   Although the agency has requested that the pamphlet be amended to
   help prevent misunderstandings, it maintains that the regulations
   do not permit reimbursement given  the facts in this matter.   It
   notes,  further, that  erroneous or  misleading  advice does  not
   provide a legal basis for payment.
 
        The parallel efforts of the  claimant and broker to sell the
   residence did not  diminish or offset the broker  fees.  Further,
   the record does not indicate that the sum of the broker  fees and
   advertising costs  would be a  reasonable or customary  amount to
   incur in selling the residence in the locality.
        The claimant is not entitled to reimbursement.
 
 
                                 ____________________________
                                 JOSEPH A. VERGILIO
                                 Board Judge