Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________ May 13, 1999 _______________________ GSBCA 14747-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS W. SCHMIDT Thomas W. Schmidt, Burleson, TX, Claimant. Stephen Coakley, Deputy Chief of Staff, Resource Management, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Thomas W. Schmidt, an employee of the Army Corps of Engineers, seeks to have his permanent change of station (PCS) orders reissued to avoid the three-year limitation on reimbursement of real estate transaction costs. Claimant transferred from Fort Worth to Dallas, Texas in May 1994. He did not sell his home and relocate closer to Dallas at the time of his transfer because the Corps was discussing collocating the Fort Worth and Dallas offices and he thought he could save the Government the expenses of two moves in the event he was transferred back to Fort Worth. After considering this option for a lengthy period, in June 1998, the Corps decided that it would maintain the two separate locations. Claimant asserts that he delayed selling his home in the Fort Worth area solely to save the Government the cost of relocating him twice and that his division officials knew and approved of this action. He submits that his travel orders should now be reissued to enable him to recover real estate expenses associated with a move from the Fort Worth area closer to his permanent duty station in Dallas. The Corps has reviewed his request and concluded that it is not authorized to amend the travel orders to extend the time for Mr. Schmidt to receive real estate transaction expenses. In submitting this claim for our review, however, the Corps notes that Mr. Schmidt's Division Commander supports his request because of the unusual circumstances. For the reasons stated below, we agree with the Corps that it lacks authority to grant this request. Background In May 1994, claimant worked at the Fort Worth District Corps of Engineers office in downtown Fort Worth and lived about eighteen miles south of that location. He accepted a transfer to the Southwestern Division Office of the Corps, a Major Subordinate Command (MSC) located in downtown Dallas, Texas, some forty-eight miles from Mr. Schmidt's residence. Claimant reported to duty at the Dallas office on May 29, 1994. At that time, the Corps was in the continuing process of reorganizing and downsizing. The Dallas MSC was evaluating the feasibility of collocating with the Fort Worth district office to reduce administrative costs. Mr. Schmidt decided that it would not make sense to move closer to Dallas only to have to turn around and return to the Fort Worth area if the agency decided to collocate and move the Dallas office to Fort Worth. He thus postponed selling his house in Fort Worth and moving to Dallas. Meanwhile, the collocation studies became a protracted process, prompting Mr. Schmidt to seek amendments of his travel orders extending the time in which he would be permitted to complete his move and be eligible for reimbursement of real estate expenses. His travel orders were amended several times to extend the time for completing real estate transactions until April 1998. During this process, the Corps initially decided to combine the offices and, in September 1997, issued written notifications to the employees, including claimant, informing them that they would be transferred to Fort Worth in April 1998. No PCS orders were issued in connection with this decision, however. In June 1998, the Corps decided that the MSC would remain in Dallas. This meant that Mr. Schmidt would not be returned to the Fort Worth office. At that point he asked to revisit the issue of moving to Dallas and being reimbursed for real estate transaction expenses. When the issue was officially raised with the Corps, Mr. Schmidt was informed that there was no authority to extend his eligibility for reimbursement for real estate expenses beyond the three-year maximum allowed in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) and the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Thus, the agency has informed Mr. Schmidt that his division's actions in amending his travel orders to allow for a four-year period were invalid. He questions this analysis, pointing out that he and the division in good faith believed it could extend the time frame to avoid the expenses of two relocations. Discussion Both the FTR and the JTR permit an agency to reimburse a transferred employee for real estate transaction expenses incurred in connection with a permanent change of station so long as the settlement dates for the sale of the home at the old duty station and the purchase of the home at the new duty station are not later than two years after the date that the employee reported to the new permanent duty station. In extenuating circumstances, at the written request of the employee, this time frame may be extended for an additional year, establishing a maximum of three years in which an employee must complete real estate transactions associated with a PCS to be reimbursed. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (1994); JTR C14000-B. If the transferred employee fails to meet the applicable time frame for completing real estate transactions, neither the Board nor the agency has authority to permit reimbursement of expenses incurred in the sale or purchase of a home. Hugh D. Linton, GSBCA 14574-RELO (Oct. 15, 1998); Randy Eaton, GSBCA 14260-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,524; Lazaro R. Torres, GSBCA 13967-RELO, 98-1 BCA 29,404; Ronald Holmes, GSBCA 13719-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,879; Linda L. Jeffrey, GSBCA 13963-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,868; John J. Cody, GSBCA 13701-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,694 (1996). Because the agency lacks authority to extend the maximum time frame in which to reimburse real estate transaction expenses incurred in connection with a PCS, it similarly lacks authority to amend or reissue Mr. Schmidt's travel orders to extend the time in which these expenses may be paid by the agency.[foot #] 1 An agency may not alter travel orders retroactively to authorize recoupment of an expense that is not permitted by statute or regulation or to increase or decrease entitlements fixed by statute or regulation. See Daniel P. Carstens, GSBCA 14519-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,048; Michael K. Vessey, B-214886 (July 3, 1984); Erwin E. Drossel, B-203009 (May 17, 1982). We recognize that claimant's division office genuinely believed the Corps could accommodate his desire to save the Government the cost of two moves, and that he relied on this misinformation. Additionally, claimant had no control over the length of time it took to resolve the collocation question. Nonetheless, despite the good intentions of everyone involved, there was no authority to revise the travel orders to extend the time in which to complete real estate transactions associated with claimant's transfer, and the modifications of the travel orders had no legal effect. The Government is not bound by the erroneous advice of its officials even when the employee has relied on this advice to his detriment. E.g., John J. Cody. The Corps has correctly determined that it may not now reissue claimant's travel orders to permit recoupment of real estate expenses associated with claimant's 1994 transfer to Dallas. ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Moreover, both the JTR and the FTR link eligibility for reimbursement of these expenses to the employee's actual reporting date at the new duty station, which presumably cannot be altered by retroactively amended travel orders.