Board of Contract Appeals
                 General Services Administration
                      Washington, D.C. 20405


                      ____________________
                                
                       September 6, 2002
                      ____________________
                                
                                
                        GSBCA 15807-RELO
                                
                                
                 In the Matter of ROBERT K. OJA


     Robert K. Oja, Eugene, OR, Claimant.

     M. Susan Fink, Assistant District Counsel, Corps of Engineers, Department of the
Army, Elmendorf Air Force Base, AK, appearing for Department of the Army.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Claimant seeks reconsideration of our decision in Robert K. Oja, GSBCA 15807-
RELO (June 10, 2002).  In that case we denied the claim for real estate transaction expenses
incurred by claimant upon his separation from federal service because statute and regulation
provided no entitlement to reimbursement of those expenses incurred by separated
employees.  The agency's erroneous travel authorization granting claimant real estate
transaction expenses could not enlarge claimant's entitlements fixed by statute and regulation. 
Oja.  Later, the agency amended the authorization to delete the entitlement to reimbursement
of real estate transaction expenses. 

     Claimant seeks reconsideration on the ground that his claim did not ask the Board to
enlarge claimant's entitlement, rather "it emphasized that the [Joint Travel Regulations (JTR)]
prohibit an agency from retroactively nullifying authorized reimbursable entitlements."  

     In our original decision we explained that entitlement to real estate transaction
expenses is limited by statute and regulation to employees who transfer in the interest of the
Government and that, because a separation is not considered a transfer in the interest of the
Government, separating employees are not entitled to reimbursement of those expenses.  Oja. 

     Claimant's request for reconsideration is based on the mistaken premise that the
agency's erroneous travel authorization granted claimant an entitlement that the agency
illegally revoked.  We explained in our original decision that erroneous travel authorization
cannot obligate the Government to spend money in violation of statute or regulation.  Oja,
slip op. at 3; see John C. Permaul, GSBCA 15828-RELO, 02-2 BCA   31,896; Charles M.
Ferguson, GSBCA 14568-RELO, 99-1 BCA   30,299.  Since claimant did not have a legal
entitlement to reimbursement of real estate transaction expenses, the agency could not
authorize payment of those expenses.  Consequently, the agency's refusal to pay those
expenses was in accord with statute and regulation.  

     Claimant also sees an inconsistency between our conclusion that the establishment of
the debt for the shipment of claimant's household goods (HHG) in excess of eighteen
thousand pounds was in accordance with statute and regulation and our refusal to consider
the claimant's challenge to the agency's process by which it collected the debt.  There is no
inconsistency.  Our conclusion was based on our consideration of those provisions of the
Federal Travel Regulation and the JTR which make the cost of shipping more than eighteen
thousand pounds of HHG an employee's financial responsibility.  Oja.  The process by which
the agency collected the debt is another matter entirely and is not within our delegated
authority.  Id.  

     Claimant's motion for reconsideration is denied.  



                                   ______________________________
                                   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                   Board Judge