Board of Contract Appeals General Services Administration Washington, D.C. 20405 ______________________ December 14, 1999 _______________________ GSBCA 15092-RELO In the Matter of WENDY CASTINEIRA Wendy Castineira, Naples, FL, Claimant. C. Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, appearing for Department of the Interior. PARKER, Board Judge. In September 1998, Wendy Castineira accepted a job with the National Park Service (NPS) in Naples, Florida. Ms. Castineira, who lived in Baltimore, Maryland, was not a federal employee at the time she accepted the job, but she had been a federal employee at some point in her career and was eligible for reinstatement. NPS issued travel orders to Ms. Castineira which authorized her to travel as indicated below and to incur necessary expenses in accordance with applicable law and regulations. This sentence was immediately followed by the words NEW APPOINTEE. Ms. Castineira s travel orders then went on to authorize reimbursement of her travel and transportation expenses, moving expenses, temporary storage expenses, temporary quarters expenses, real estate expenses and miscellaneous expenses. Ms. Castineira filed a claim for these expenses and was reimbursed for almost all of them. Believing that NPS had mistakenly failed to reimburse her for two days of temporary lodging expenses ($53.20) and several PCS [permanent change of station] related long- distance telephone charges ($30.45), Ms. Castineira filed a reclaim voucher for $83.65. In the process of reviewing the voucher, NPS realized that Ms. Castineira was a new employee, not a transferred employee, and determined that she was not entitled to many of the expenses for which she had been reimbursed. NPS then billed Ms. Castineira for $15,935.19 for expenses that were improperly reimbursed. Ms. Castineira s request that NPS waive repayment of that debt is still pending at the agency. Ms. Castineira has requested that the Board review NPS s determination that, as a new employee, she was not entitled to reimbursement of the $83.65 in temporary lodging expenses and long distance telephone charges claimed on her reclaim voucher. She has also asked us to review an additional claim in the amount of $4195.86 for real estate expenses incurred in connection with the purchase of a house in Naples. That claim was denied by NPS for the same reason. Discussion Although NPS did Ms. Castineira a disservice in authorizing reimbursements that it had no power to authorize, the agency is correct that Ms. Castineira s claims must be denied. According to the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), new appointees are eligible for payment of only certain travel and transportation expenses: (1) Travel expenses, including per diem for the appointee . . . ; (2) Transportation for immediate family of appointee . . . ; (3) Mileage if privately owned vehicle is used . . . ; (4) Transportation and temporary storage of household goods . . . ; (5) Nontemporary storage of household goods if appointed to an isolated location . . . ; and (6) Transportation of mobile homes . . . . 41 CFR 302-1.10(e) (1998). Items not specifically listed in this section, such as per diem for the employee s family, subsistence while occupying temporary quarters, miscellaneous expenses, residence sale and purchase expenses, and lease-breaking expenses are specifically not allowable. 41 CFR 302-1.10(f). According to the FTR: New appointees include not only individuals when first appointed to Government service, but also individuals appointed after a break in service except that employees separated as a result of reduction in force or transfer of function may be treated as transferees instead of new appointees . . . . 41 CFR 302-1.10(a). Ms. Castineira met the definition of a new employee because she was appointed after a break in service that was not the result of a reduction in force or a transfer of function. As a new employee, Ms. Castineira was entitled by law only to limited relocation benefits. Unfortunately, NPS erroneously authorized benefits to which she was not entitled, including the expenses which are the subject of Ms. Castineira s claim (temporary quarters subsistence expenses, miscellaneous expenses and real estate expenses). It is well settled, however, that travel orders which erroneously authorize relocation expenses to which a new employee is not entitled cannot create a right to reimbursement in excess of the statutory and regulatory entitlements. William Archilla, GSBCA 13878-RELO, 97-1 BCA 28,799. This is true regardless of whether the employee relied to his or her detriment on the erroneous orders.[foot #] 1 Id. Ms. Castineira has also requested that, if the Board cannot provide relief under an existing statute or regulation, the Board or the Administrator of General Services, under the Meritorious Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3702 (d) (Supp. III 1997), seek relief from Congress on her behalf. We will forward Ms. Castineira s request to the appropriate office within the General Services Administration, with no recommendation as to its disposition. ----------- FOOTNOTE BEGINS --------- [foot #] 1 Although Ms. Castineira claims that she detrimentally relied on the erroneous orders, it is not clear what if any financial consequences resulted from that reliance. Ms. Castineira states in her claim that, had she known that the expenses would not be reimbursed, she would have worked with a different mortgage company and would not have incurred the same travel expenses. We do not quarrel with this assertion by Ms. Castineira, who clearly was misled by NPS, but we do point out that even if Ms. Castineira had known that the claimed expenses would not be reimbursed, she would still have incurred substantially the same expenses in connection with the move. To the extent she incurred additional costs because she thought the Government would pay for them (such as the excess mortgage costs or travel expenses she mentions), we point out that federal employees are expected to use the same care in incurring expenses to be reimbursed by the Government as they would in incurring expenses for themselves. See Wesley G. Chubb, GSBCA 13672-RELO, ___ _______________ 97-2 BCA 29,034. ----------- FOOTNOTE ENDS ----------- Decision The claim is denied. __________________________ ROBERT W. PARKER Board Judge