Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________________________________ May 22, 2000 _____________________________________________ GSBCA 15281-RELO In the Matter of JENIECE K. STANFIELD Jeniece K. Stanfield, Arnold, MO, Claimant. Leonard Hardy, Jr., Deputy Administrator for Operations and Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of Agriculture. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Claimant, Jeniece K. Stanfield, is an employee of the Department of Agriculture. In July 1997, claimant accomplished a permanent change of station (PCS) from Lafayette, Louisiana, to St. Louis, Missouri. Subsequently, she requested reimbursement for relocation expenses for her daughter, and the agency denied her request. Claimant asks this Board to review the agency s decision. Claimant states that before she accepted the position, she made it clear to the agency that her acceptance was contingent upon her daughter s relocation expenses being paid by the agency. Her daughter had recently graduated from college and was dependent upon the claimant and her husband for support. Claimant informed the agency of her daughter s age and date of birth. She discussed her daughter s circumstances in detail with the agency travel official. She received a copy of her Advance Travel Authorization Service Agreement which listed her daughter as a family member by name and date of birth and indicated that her daughter s relocation expenses would be paid. After claimant moved, she submitted a travel voucher for reimbursement of moving expenses. The agency disallowed $1449.78, stating temp[orary] quarters . . . cannot be reimbursed for child 21 or older. The claimant sought a review of the matter within the agency, and received a letter from the Deputy Administrator for Operations and Management which read in relevant part: [T]he National Finance Center was correct in disallowing reimbursement of the daughter s relocation expenses based on the facts provided. Ms. Stanfield is precluded by regulation from reimbursement for her daughter s expenses since her daughter did not qualify as an eligible family member based on the FTR s [Federal Travel Regulation s] definition of children. At the time the authorization was issued the daughter was 22 years of age. We regret that Ms. Stanfield received an incorrect authorization and erroneous advice; however this does not serve to increase her legal entitlement. Unfortunately, erroneous advice by agency officials cannot create a right to reimbursement when no statutory or regulatory right for such reimbursement exists. As a result of this case we have taken steps to ensure that agency travel officials are aware of the critical role they play in researching and explaining entitlement rights to our employees. The agency is correct that claimant is not entitled to reimbursement for her daughter s relocation expenses. The applicable provisions of the FTR indicate that claimant is only eligible to receive reimbursement for temporary quarters for immediate family members, which includes: Children of the employee or employee s spouse who are unmarried and under 21 years of age or who, regardless of age, are physically or mentally incapable of self- support. 41 CFR 302-1.4(f)(ii) (1996). Claimant s daughter was 22 years old at the time of the PCS. While claimant stated that her daughter was dependent upon claimant and claimant s spouse for support, she also states that her daughter recently graduated from college. There is no allegation that the daughter was physically or mentally incapable of self-support. The agency admits that claimant received erroneous advice. Even so, erroneous advice from a Government employee does not afford claimant relief in this matter. That claimant was misinformed by a Government official provides no legal basis for the payment of a claim for which there is no authority. It is a well-settled rule of law that the Government cannot be bound by the erroneous advice or action of its agents. Parul Patel, GSBCA 14953-RELO, 99-2 BCA 30,535; John J. Cody, GSBCA 13701-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,694 (1996); Kevin S.Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,688 (1996). Even though the Advanced Service Agreement indicated that claimant would be reimbursed for her daughter s relocation expenses, the agency cannot authorize reimbursement if there is no statutory or regulatory right to such expenses, nor can this Board authorize reimbursement under such circumstances. The claim is denied. _________________________ ALLAN H. GOODMAN Board Judge