December 20, 1996 GSBCA 13720-RELO In the Matter of SUZANNE G. WADE Suzanne G. Wade, Kingshill, St. Croix, USVI, Claimant. J. P. Jackson, Finance Officer, Defense Finance and Accounting Office - Indianapolis Center, Fort Gillem, GA, appearing for Department of Defense. DANIELS, Board Judge (Chairman). Suzanne G. Wade, a Department of Defense (DoD) civilian employee, was transferred from Fort McClellan, Alabama, to the United States Property and Fiscal Office, United States Virgin Islands National Guard (VING), on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, in December 1990. She was authorized temporary quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) in connection with the transfer. Ms. Wade had never made a permanent change of station move before, so she relied on VING personnel to advise her as to her rights and responsibilities. Unfortunately, VING had little experience with these moves, either. The combination resulted in events which caused DoD to reject the portions of Ms. Wade's claim for TQSE which involve meal and laundry expenses. Ms. Wade asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review those portions of her claim. We find that this part of her claim is for the most part meritorious. When an agency transfers an employee from one permanent duty station to another, it shall, within specified parameters and in accordance with regulation, pay the subsistence expenses the employee and his or her immediate family incur while occupying temporary quarters. 5 U.S.C.  5724a(a)(3) (1994). The Federal Travel Regulation, which is issued by the Administrator of General Services, and the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Joint Travel Regulations (JTR), which supplement the FTR, establish constraints on the TQSE for which transferred DoD civilian employees may be reimbursed. The following limitations established by those regulations are relevant here. Costs claimed must be itemized so that they may be reviewed. The costs must have been actually incurred. The costs must also have been reasonably incurred. Receipts must be provided to substantiate a claim for more than a prescribed amount ($25 at the time of Ms. Wade's move, $75 now) for any single meal. Receipts are also required for laundry and cleaning expenses, except when coin operated facilities are used. Kevin S. Foster, GSBCA 13639-RELO (Nov. 8, 1996). VING personnel did not understand any of this when they advised Ms. Wade. They told her only that she was entitled to $66 per day for her meals and incidental expenses; they made no mention of any requirement for receipts. Ms. Wade subsequently filed a claim for TQSE which included $66 for meals on each of the seventy- eight days beginning on December 8, 1990, and ending on February 23, 1991. For each day, she showed meal costs of $11 for breakfast, $20 for lunch, and $35 for dinner. The claim also included amounts for laundry and dry cleaning, some involving coin operated facilities and some not. The DoD finance officer to whom this claim was directed disallowed it because the daily meal costs were both identical and at what he believed to be the maximum rate allowable. He was also concerned that the claim might be fraudulent. Memoranda in the record from VING personnel, including the VING inspector general, make clear that in submitting the claim, Ms. Wade had no intention of defrauding the Government. After the initial rejection, on advice from VING personnel, Ms. Wade resubmitted her claim, showing, "as best as I can remember," meal and laundry expenses she had paid. The second claim includes three meals on each of the seventy-four days beginning on December 12, 1990, and ending on February 23, 1991. On each of these days, Ms. Wade was located at St. Croix. She showed breakfasts, each of them having cost a specified amount between $6 and $10; lunches, each at a specified cost between $10 and $15; and dinners, each at between $21 and $28. The claim also includes amounts for laundry and dry cleaning at coin operated facilities. This claim was also rejected. Rather than paying Ms. Wade for the TQSE she sought, DoD began to withhold sums from her pay so as to recoup money it had advanced to her prior to the transfer. We now turn to the merits of the revised version of the claim, which is the matter now at issue. The total amount of this claim is $3,409. The record is sufficient to establish that Ms. Wade actually incurred the meal expenses she asserts. Because her failure to keep receipts or maintain a contemporaneous log of her costs was the result of incorrect advice she received from agency personnel, we consider that a list prepared later from her best recollection is acceptable proof. DoD has not challenged Ms. Wade's assertion that she actually spent the amounts claimed for laundry and dry cleaning. We gather from Ms. Wade's submissions that she purchased her meals in restaurants. The reasonableness of expenses for restaurant meals is assessed against the standards set by regulation. Foster. At the time for which Ms. Wade seeks TQSE, the JTR set maximum reasonable amounts of $66 per day for meals and incidental expenses at St. Croix -- $10 for breakfast, $17 for lunch, $26 for dinner, and $13 for incidentals. These amounts pertain, however, only to the first thirty days for which TQSE was authorized. For each day after this period, the regulation provides, reasonable amounts are three-quarters of the above -- $49.50 in all, subdivided into $7.50 for breakfast, $12.75 for lunch, $19.50 for dinner, and $9.75 for incidentals. Because at the time Ms. Wade incurred these expenses, an employee could not be reimbursed more than $25 for a meal for which no receipt was presented, and Ms. Wade had no receipts, recovery for each of the dinners consumed during the first thirty-day period is further limited to $25. The receipt requirement does not affect the claim for laundry and dry cleaning expenses, since all of those expenses for which Ms. Wade now seeks reimbursement were incurred at coin operated facilities. The fact that Ms. Wade was given contrary advice does not permit us to waive the restrictions which are contained in the regulations. The Government may not spend money in violation of statute or regulation, regardless of any advice or commitments which may have been made by its employees. Foster (citing Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990), and Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 (1947)). For the first thirty-day period, Ms. Wade spent $1,307 on meals and $60 on laundry and dry cleaning. If she purchased all the meals in restaurants, she is entitled to recover all of this amount except for $19. All costs were within the amounts considered reasonable by regulation, but the deduction is necessary to reflect the total amount by which the cost of some dinners exceeded the maximum allowable without receipts, $25 per meal. For the second thirty-day period, Ms. Wade claims $1,307 in meal expenses and $80 in costs of laundry and dry cleaning. Again assuming that she purchased all the meals in restaurants, she is entitled to recover most of the meal expenses and all of the laundry costs. Some of the breakfasts and lunches, and all of the dinners, cost more than the maximum reasonable amounts established by regulation. She may not recover the portion of the claimed sum which is attributable to the excess, $141.50. The documentation contained in the record shows that Ms. Wade was authorized TQSE for only sixty days. Unless she was allowed additional TQSE, she should be reimbursed only the amounts described above -- a total of $2,593.50. If authorization was granted for the additional fourteen days of TQSE Ms. Wade seeks, DoD should reimburse more of the claimant's expenses. Ms. Wade spent $620 on meals and $35 on laundry during this period. Again assuming that all meals were purchased in restaurants, and making deductions for meals whose costs exceeded maximum reasonable amounts, she may recover $573.75 for these fourteen days. The Department of Defense shall settle its accounts with Ms. Wade in accordance with these instructions. _________________________ STEPHEN M. DANIELS Board Judge