Board of Contract Appeals

                 General Services Administration

                      Washington, D.C. 20405





                       ___________________



                        November 22, 2002

                       ___________________





                         GSBCA 15950-RELO





                In the Matter of KARL E. SERBOUSEK





     Karl E. Serbousek, North Little Rock, AR, Claimant.



     Cynthia R. Blevins, Acting Deputy Director, Finance Center, United States Army

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Millington, TN, appearing for Department of

the Army.



DeGRAFF, Board Judge.



     A new appointee who has relocated to accept employment with the Government is not

entitled to reimbursement of real estate expenses.



                           Background



     In late 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) offered Karl E. Serbousek a position

as a mechanical engineer in Arkansas.  Mr. Serbousek, who was not a federal civilian

employee, lived in Illinois.  DoD initially advised Mr. Serbousek that it would not reimburse

him for real estate transaction expenses that he incurred as the result of his move from

Illinois to Arkansas.  Later, DoD told Mr. Serbousek that it would reimburse him for such

expenses, and issued travel orders that authorized the reimbursement of real estate expenses.



     In July 2002, Mr. Serbousek asked to be reimbursed for the costs he incurred when

he sold his home in Illinois.  DoD denied his request because he was not entitled to this

benefit as a new appointee.  Mr. Serbousek asks that we review DoD's decision.

                           Discussion



     It is well established that, by statute, only certain limited expenses may be authorized

in connection with the relocation of a new appointee.  5 U.S.C.   5723 (2000).  Such limited

expenses do not include reimbursement of real estate transaction expenses.  Id.



     Regulations implementing this statute confirm that new hires may not receive any

allowances for real estate transactions.  41 CFR  302-1.10(f) (2001); Joint Travel Regulations

C14001.  Applying these clear statutory and regulatory provisions, the Board has consistently

denied claims of new appointees for reimbursement of real estate transaction expenses. 

Joseph B. McGill, Jr., GSBCA 15783-RELO, 02-2 BCA   31,990 (citing cases). 



     We recognize that Mr. Serbousek's travel orders authorized the reimbursement of real

estate expenses.  Such authorization, however, is of no effect since it is clearly contrary to

statute and regulation.  It is well established that the Government may not authorize the

payment of money in violation of statute or regulation, even where a claimant may have

relied in good faith upon an improper authorization to his detriment.  Kevin S. Foster,

GSBCA 13639-RELO, 97-1 BCA   28,688 (1996) (citing Office of Personnel Management

v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990); Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380

(1947)).  While it is unfortunate that Mr. Serbousek cannot be paid under these

circumstances, the taxpayers' interest is served in not having unlawful disbursements made

from public funds.  



                            Decision



     The claim is denied.









                                   ___________________________________

                                   MARTHA H. DeGRAFF

                                   Board Judge