Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405









                     _______________________



                        February 12, 2003

                     _______________________





                         GSBCA 15838-RELO





                In the Matter of DEBORAH H. MURRAY     





     Deborah H. Murray, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA, Claimant.



     Deidre W. Gray, Chief, PCS & Appeals Division, Defense Finance and Accounting

Service, Columbus, OH, appearing for Department of Defense.



WILLIAMS, Board Judge.



     An employee transferred from an overseas assignment to a new post of duty in the

continental United States (CONUS) seeks reimbursement of round trip airfare for herself and

her dependents between her former CONUS post of duty and her new duty station.  Claimant

had return rights from her overseas post to her former CONUS duty station.  Because

claimant's return rights were extinguished when she accepted a transfer to a new CONUS

location and because claimant's travel from overseas via her old CONUS duty post to her

new duty post involved a circuitous route, she must bear the expense of the trip between the

old and new CONUS duty stations.



                            Background



     Claimant, Deborah H. Murray, an electronics engineer with the Department of

Defense, was transferred from Orlando, Florida, to Canberra, Australia, on December 8,

1997.  In conjunction with that move, claimant was granted return rights to the position she

held in Orlando.



     On February 7, 2000, claimant was transferred from Canberra, Australia, to Carson,

California.  In conjunction with her permanent change of station (PCS), claimant was

authorized transportation and per diem for herself and three dependents -- her spouse and two

children.  Claimant's travel orders were amended four times;  those amendments pertinent

here are  No. D-4017-00-A1 (requested January 7, 2000, and issued January 13, 2000), which

authorized privately owned conveyance travel and mileage rate from Florida to California,

and No. D-4017-00-A3 (requested and issued July 12, 2000), which authorized travel to

Florida and return to California for employee and dependents (estimated cost $2200). 

Claimant's travel orders provided that:  "In connection with Alternate Destination Travel, any

costs in excess of the costs for travel to the place of actual residence (and return for RAT)

is borne by the employee (C4162)."



     Claimant had left her household goods in Melbourne, Florida, and rented her home

there with the intention of returning, but, while she was overseas, her job in Orlando was

abolished.  Once claimant was offered the position in California, she requested orders to

return from overseas to California via Melbourne.  Originally, claimant intended to travel via

airplane to Florida and then via automobile to California.  However, she decided otherwise

prior to leaving Australia because her new supervisor requested that she report to the duty

station as early as possible, and the cost difference between airplane and automobile travel

was minimal.



     Ms. Murray has submitted receipts for four airline tickets utilized by herself and three

dependents for travel on January 23, 2000, from Los Angeles, California, to Melbourne,

Florida, with return to Los Angeles, California, on February 8, 2000.  The tickets were

purchased in Australia on January 14, 2000, and were issued in Australian dollars (AUD) for

$3218, which converted to $2144.80 U.S. dollars, the amount being claimed by Ms. Murray. 



     The Defense Finance and Accounting Service denied reimbursement because no

provision in the Joint Travel Regulations would allow payment of the claimed airfare from

California to Florida and return, even though it was authorized in the amendments to

claimant's travel orders. 



                            Discussion



     We are called upon to decide whether claimant's return rights coupled with her PCS

entitlements would permit her to be reimbursed for her trip from her new CONUS duty

station to her prior CONUS  residence and back.  Although this is a case of first impression

for this tribunal, the Comptroller General addressed this precise issue in Erich W. Koch,

B-252529.2 (May 5, 1994).  There, Mr. Koch had return rights to a position in Chicago, his

actual residence and the home of record to which he would have been entitled to travel

expenses upon completion of his tour of duty overseas, but he accepted a transfer from

Germany to Fort McPherson, a different CONUS location.  The Comptroller General ruled

that Mr. Koch's return rights were extinguished when he accepted a transfer to a different

CONUS location.  Specifically, the Comptroller General determined that Mr. Koch did not

have a travel and transportation entitlement to Chicago and then to Fort McPherson, but only

an entitlement from his old duty station in Germany to his new duty station in

Fort McPherson, citing Roger E. Dexter, B-214904 (Sept. 5, 1984). 



     Further, the Comptroller General in Koch reasoned that because the claimant had

traveled to his new duty station at Fort McPherson not by a usually traveled route but by a

circuitous route via Chicago, he was responsible for the excess cost, citing then pertinent

provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR).  The FTR applicable to Ms. Murray

similarly provides that the "agency will not pay for excess costs resulting from circuitous

routes."  41 CFR 301-2.4 (1999); see also Edgardo L. Delgado, GSBCA 15285-TRAV,

01-1 BCA   31,272; Thomas L. Laughlin, GSBCA 15393-TRAV, 01-1 BCA   31,213;

Patrick T. Klever, GSBCA 14304-TRAV, 98-2 BCA   29,862; Susan Reed,

GSBCA 13993-TRAV, 97-2 BCA   29,303; James Jackson, GSBCA 13897-TRAV,

97-2 BCA   29,029 (agency should limit reimbursement to the amount that it would have paid

if claimant had traveled by a direct route).



     Applying this rationale to the instant case, we conclude that Ms. Murray's return rights

were extinguished when she accepted the transfer to California and that her only travel and

transportation entitlement was between her duty station in Canberra, Australia, and Carson,

California.  As such, claimant's travel from Australia to California via Florida entailed a

circuitous route, and she cannot be reimbursed for the claimed airfare.



     The fact that the agency authorized reimbursement in claimant's amended travel orders

does not change this result.  Such mistake does not operate to expand the entitlement to

reimbursement established by regulation.  The Government is not bound by the erroneous

advice of its officials, even when the employee has relied on this advice to his detriment. 

Lee A. Gardner, GSBCA 15404-RELO, 01-2 BCA   31,456; John J. Cody,

GSBCA 13701-RELO, 97-1 BCA   28,694 (1996).  Erroneous travel orders, reflecting

mistaken assumptions on the part of authorizing officials, cannot obligate the Government

to expend monies contrary to regulation.  Robert K. Oja, GSBCA 15807-RELO, 01-2 BCA 

 31,955; John C. Permaul, GSBCA 15828-RELO, 02-2 BCA   31,896; Charles M. Ferguson,

GSBCA 14568-TRAV, 99-1 BCA   30,299.



                             Decision



     The claim is denied.







                                   ________________________________

                                   MARY ELLEN COSTER WILLIAMS

                                   Board Judge