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


                      _____________________

                        December 23, 2005         
                      _____________________       


                         GSBCA 16704-RELO


             In the Matter of DOMENICANGELO D'ANGELLA


     Domenicangelo D'Angella, Tampa, FL, Claimant.

     Judy Hughes, Travel Management and Procedures Office, Defense
Finance and Accounting Service, Department of Defense, Columbus,
OH, appearing for Department of Defense.

BORWICK, Board Judge.

     Domenicangelo D'Angella, claimant, seeks reconsideration of
our decision in Domenicangelo D'Angella, GSBCA 16704-RELO (Nov. 22,
2005), sustaining the agency's decision to deny claimant
reimbursement of real estate transaction expenses.  For the
following reasons, we deny reconsideration.

     In his reconsideration motion, claimant argues that prior to
the sale of his house, he was given official orders that
"authorized me to sell" it.  Claimant refers to the agency's travel
authorization of March 13, 2001.  Unfortunately, claimant
misconstrues the authorization, which on its face did nothing more
than allow the real estate transaction benefit pursuant to statute
and regulation.  We explained in our earlier decision that in
claimant's case, as an overseas employee transferring back to a
duty station in the continental United States, the benefit is only
triggered by official notification the claimant would be
transferring to a permanent duty station different from the one
claimant had left.  Claimant was officially notified of his
transfer to a different duty station from the one he had left on
October 21, 2004, well after the sale of his residence at his old
duty station on May 30, 2001.  D'Angella,  slip op. at 3.  

     Claimant's former supervisor, Mr. Sonny Fann, now says that
the travel authorization was based upon "full PCS entitlements
which included the sale of [claimant's] house."  The authorization
of March 13, 2001, did not specifically authorize claimant to
immediately sell his house; indeed, such an interpretation would
violate statute and regulation and would result in an illegal
authorization.  Rosemary Schultz, GSBCA 16703-RELO (Oct. 18, 2005).
We must interpret and apply travel orders and authorizations in a
manner consistent with statute and regulation.  Carolyn K. Stiles,
GSBCA 14443-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   29,798. 
 
     Claimant's motion for reconsideration is denied.  


__________________________
ANTHONY S. BORWICK
Board Judge