Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 _______________________ January 21, 2000 _______________________ GSBCA 14747-RELO In the Matter of THOMAS W. SCHMIDT Thomas W. Schmidt, Burleson, TX, Claimant. Stephen Coakley, Deputy Chief of Staff, Resource Management, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Army. HYATT, Board Judge. Claimant, Thomas W. Schmidt, has asked for reconsideration of our decision sustaining a determination by the Corps of Engineers that his eligibility for reimbursement of real estate transaction costs under amended permanent change of station orders could not be extended beyond the three-year limitation set forth in applicable regulations. We concluded that the Corps of Engineers had properly decided that it lacked authority to take the action requested by claimant. Thomas W. Schmidt, GSBCA 14747-RELO, 99-2 BCA 30,430. Claimant transferred from Fort Worth to Dallas, Texas in May 1994. He did not sell his home and move closer to Dallas at the time of his transfer because the Corps was considering collocating the Fort Worth and Dallas offices and he thought he could save the Government the expenses of two moves in the event he was transferred back to Fort Worth. After considering this possibility for some time, in June 1998, the Corps decided that it would maintain the two separate locations. Claimant asserted that he delayed selling his home in the Fort Worth area solely to save the Government the cost of relocating him twice and that his division officials knew and approved of this action. Indeed, claimant's division officials amended his travel orders several times, extending the time in which he would be permitted to complete his move and be eligible for reimbursement of real estate expenses. When the Corps officially reviewed these actions, it concluded that it was not authorized to amend or reissue the travel orders to extend the time for Mr. Schmidt to receive real estate transaction expenses. We agreed that, under the relevant regulations, the Corps lacked authority to grant this request. 41 CFR 302-6.1 (1994); JTR C14000-B. Mr. Schmidt, in requesting reconsideration, takes issue with the penultimate sentence in the following paragraph from our decision: Because the agency lacks authority to extend the maximum time frame in which to reimburse real estate transaction expenses incurred in connection with a PCS, it similarly lacks authority to amend or reissue Mr. Schmidt's travel orders to extend the time in which these expenses may be paid by the agency. [Foot # 1 ] An agency may not alter travel orders retroactively to authorize recoupment of an expense that is not permitted by statute or regulation or to increase or decrease entitlements fixed by statute or regulation. See Daniel P. Carstens, GSBCA 14519-RELO, 98-2 BCA 30,048; Michael K. Vessey, B-214886 (July 3, 1984); Erwin E. Drossel, B-203009 (May 17, 1982). We recognize that claimant's division office genuinely believed the Corps could accommodate his desire to save the Government the cost of two moves, and that he relied on this misinformation. Additionally, claimant had no control over the length of time it took to resolve the collocation question. Nonetheless, despite the good intentions of everyone involved, there was no authority to revise the travel orders to extend the time in which to complete real estate transactions associated with claimant's transfer and the modifications of the travel orders had no legal effect. The Government is not bound by the erroneous advice of its officials even when the employee has relied on this advice to his detriment. E.g., John J. Cody [GSBCA 13701-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,694 (1996)]. The Corps has correctly determined that it may not now reissue claimant's travel orders to permit recoupment of real estate expenses associated with claimant's 1994 transfer to Dallas. ****************** Footnote Begin ********** [Foot # 1 ] Moreover, both the Joint Travel Regulations and the Federal Travel Regulation link eligibility for reimbursement of these expenses to the employee's actual reporting date at the new duty station, which presumably cannot be altered by retroactively amended travel orders. ****************** Footnote End ************ In his request for reconsideration, Mr. Schmidt states that the "key" to the decision appears to be that he was "given bad 'advice' by the Corps officials." He submits that in fact he did not rely on the erroneous advice provided by his division; he was issued travel orders extending the time to complete his move. The crux of the Board's decision was that the actions of Mr. Schmidt's division in extending his travel orders, although well-intentioned, were wholly invalid. The time limitation established by regulation cannot be extended in this manner. The distinction pointed out by claimant makes no difference in this case. It is well- settled that erroneous travel orders, reflecting mistaken assumptions on the part of authorizing officials, cannot obligate the Government to expend monies contrary to regulation. Charles M. Ferguson, GSBCA 14568-TRAV, 99-1 BCA 30,299; James E. Black, GSBCA 14548-RELO, 98-2 BCA 29,876; William Archilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,799. It is immaterial whether erroneous advice is provided informally or memorialized in an order. Accordingly, claimant's request for reconsideration is denied. ____________________________ CATHERINE B. HYATT Board Judge