Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ________________ July 2, 1998 ________________ GSBCA 14548-RELO In the Matter of JAMES E. BLACK James E. Black, Goldsboro, NC, Claimant. David M. England, Office of General Counsel, Defense Commissary Agency, Fort Lee, VA, appearing for Department of Defense. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, James E. Black, is a civilian employee of the Defense Commissary Agency. He has requested that this Board review the agency's denial of his request for reimbursement for real estate expenses incurred in the sale of his residence in the United States arising from his permanent change of station (PCS). In 1995, claimant accomplished a PCS move from Fort Campbell, Kentucky to Heidelberg, Germany. He states: This was my first assignment to an Overseas location and I did not know any of their rules, regulations or procedures pertaining to an Overseas relocation. So at this point I began to contact the personnel specialists that provide us with the procedures, rules, and regulations that one needs to know when making an Overseas move since I do not have a set of the JTR that governs the entitlements when making an overseas move. . . . I was informed that if I sold my home I would be reimbursed for the costs associate[d] with the sale of my home. I was informed that if I returned to Fort Campbell that I would not be entitled to the reimbursement. I had no intentions of returning to Fort Campbell and made the decision to go ahead and sell the house. Once I received my orders and saw that their Real Estate entitlement was authorized as indicated on my orders, I went ahead and sold my house [in September 1995]. I would not have even considered selling the house if I had not been told that I was authorized this entitlement and it had not been annotated on my orders. In January 1998, claimant made another PCS move from Germany to Seymore Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. He submitted his claim for reimbursement of real estate costs arising from the sale of his residence in Kentucky in 1995. The agency denied his claim, stating: Under the United States Code[, Title 5, ] 5724[(a)] (4), both the old and new stations of a transferred employee must be located within the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the territories and possessions of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or certain areas of Panama to entitle him to reimbursement for expenses incurred in buying or selling a residence. Thus, an employee may not be reimbursed for the cost of selling his residence in the U.S. incident to transfer overseas, nor may he be reimbursed for the cost of buying a new residence upon reassignment to the United States. Claimant has requested that this Board review the agency's determination. In its response to the claimant's request for review, the agency informed the Board that in November 1997, claimant was placed on orders to return to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, but in January 1998, the orders were amended and he was diverted to Seymore Johnson Air Force Base. The agency also cited additional statutory authority, discussed below, supporting its denial of claimant's claim. An employee may, under certain circumstances, be reimbursed for the expenses arising from real estate transactions arising from overseas transfers and reassignments to the United States. However, as set forth below, claimant is not entitled to reimbursement under the circumstances in this matter. A federal employee is entitled to be reimbursed for expenses of selling a residence when the Government transfers him from a duty station within the United States to a foreign duty station and then to a duty station within the United States which is different from the first duty station. Such reimbursement, however: shall not be allowed for any sale . . . that occurs prior to official notification that the employee's return to the United States would be to an official station other than the official station from which the employee was transferred when assigned to the foreign post of duty. 5 U.S.C. 5724a(a)(4)(A) (1994). The regulations that implemented this statutory provision at the time claimant sold his residence provided that the "official notification" required by the statute will generally be in the form of a change of official station travel authorization. 41 CFR 302-6.1(g)(4) (1995); JTR C14000-C.4. An employee who sells his house before receiving the official notification required by the statute and the regulations is not entitled to be reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with the sale. Harry T. Teraoka, GSBCA 13641-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,796; John W. McCollum, GSBCA 13671-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,863. Claimant apparently received correct advice, but misleading orders, prior to the sale of his home. It is true that he would not be entitled to reimbursement if he subsequently returned to Fort Campbell, as he was advised; he would in no event have been eligible for real estate transaction expenses at the time he moved to Germany, however. That claimant at that time had "no intention of returning" is not the operative fact. According to statute and regulation, in order to be entitled to reimbursement, claimant must sell his residence only after official notification that his return to the United States would be to an official station other than the official station from which the employee was transferred when assigned to the foreign post of duty. At the time he transferred to Germany, claimant had no idea to which official duty station in the United States he might subsequently transfer, even if he had a no intention at that time to return to Fort Campbell. In fact, he subsequently received orders to return to Fort Campbell in November 1997, but such orders were subsequently amended. The permanent duty travel orders that were issued in January 1998 for duty at Seymore Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina constituted official notification, required by the statute and the regulations, that claimant would not be returning to Fort Campbell. He sold his house long before he received these travel orders. Claimant was not prohibited from returning to Fort Campbell if a vacancy for which he was qualified had existed at the time he made a PCS back to the United States, as evidenced by his prior travel orders of November 1997. See, e.g., John W. McCollum. Claimant asserts that he relied upon his original PCS travel orders in 1995 that indicated payment of real estate expenses was authorized. The agency claims that the authorization block on the travel orders was erroneously checked, and funds were never authorized for payment, as such authorization was contrary to statute and regulation. Absent a statutory or regulatory provision allowing for reimbursement of a particular relocation expense, neither the agency nor this Board may authorize its payment, despite the fact that an employee may have incurred costs in good faith reliance on erroneous advice. See, e.g., Chesley F. Kimbrel, GSBCA 13680-RELO, 97-2 BCA 29,043 (1996); Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996). Claimant may not be reimbursed the costs sought. ______________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge