BNUMBER:  B-271204
DATE:  July 2, 1996
TITLE:  William Archilla

**********************************************************************

Matter of:William Archilla

File:     B-271204

Date:July 2, 1996

DIGEST

A new appointee to a manpower shortage category position from the 
private sector, who was issued travel orders erroneously authorizing 
full permanent change-of-station allowances, may only be reimbursed 
for personal travel per diem, transportation for self and family, and 
shipment of household goods.  5 U.S.C.  sec.  5723 (1996).  Submission of 
this claim to the Congress under the Meritorious Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.  sec.  
3702(d) (1996) is not appropriate.  

DECISION

This decision responds to a request from the Chief, Travel Division, 
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Department of Defense[1] 
concerning the entitlement of a newly appointed employee to be 
reimbursed full relocation expenses.  If not reimbursable, the 
question raised is whether the employee's situation meets the 
standards for relief under the Meritorious Claims Act.  We conclude 
that full relocation expenses may not be allowed and that it would be 
inappropriate to submit the matter to the Congress for relief as a 
meritorious claim, for the following reasons. 

BACKGROUND

Mr. William Archilla, who was employed in the private sector and 
residing in Columbus, Georgia, applied for and was appointed to a 
manpower shortage category position with the Defense Contract 
Management Command International (DCMCI) in Homestead, Florida.  
Although the appointment was his initial federal position, Mr. 
Archilla was authorized full permanent change-of-station allowances as 
though he was a federal employee being transferred from one permanent 
duty station to another for permanent duty.

Mr. Archilla reported for duty on November 19, 1995, and remained in 
temporary quarters until December 1, 1995, when he moved into 
permanent quarters.   He thereafter submitted a travel voucher for 
travel expenses for two privately owned vehicles to transport himself 
and his family from Columbus, Georgia, to Homestead, Florida; per diem 
for himself and his family for the trip; a miscellaneous expense 
allowance; the cost of a medical exam for his daughter that was 
required for registration in the local school system; and subsistence 
expenses while in temporary quarters for 1 or 2 days before leaving 
Columbus, Georgia, and the approximately 11 day period after he 
reported for duty in Homestead, Florida.  No claim was made for real 
estate transactions on that voucher since the employee had not 
completed the sale and purchase of residences.  His voucher claim 
totaled $2,883.96, of which the agency paid en route per diem for the 
employee ($79.00), mileage for him and his family ($205.44), and tolls 
($31.80). 

The agency states that Mr. Archilla was informed after he submitted 
his travel voucher that the travel authorization issued to him was 
erroneous, in that it authorized full relocation expenses rather than 
the limited benefits available for a first duty station assignment.  
Mr. Archilla, requests that the matter be submitted for relief under 
the Meritorious Claims Act, arguing that the expenses incurred by him 
were reasonable and were incurred in good faith reliance on the 
information given.

OPINION      

As a new appointee to a manpower shortage category position, Mr. 
Archilla's relocation expenses were authorized under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5723 
(1996) which provides   that such an appointee may be reimbursed 
travel per diem for himself, the travel and transportation expenses 
for himself and his immediate family, and the expense of moving 
household goods and other personal effects, from the place of 
residence at the time of selection to the first permanent duty 
station.  Section 5723 does not allow reimbursement for temporary 
quarters subsistence expenses, real estate expenses, or miscellaneous 
expenses.  Those expense reimbursements are authorized only for 
federal employees who are being transferred from one official duty 
station or agency to another for permanent duty.[2]  

As a new appointee in a manpower shortage category position, Mr. 
Anchilla was correctly reimbursed for his and his family's travel to 
Homestead, Florida.  Absent any claim for shipment of their household 
goods, he has received all the reimbursement to which he is legally 
entitled under 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5723 (1996), and the agency's action 
disallowing the other claimed expenses is correct.

Regarding the request that we submit the matter to the Congress as a 
meritorious claim under 31 U.S.C.  sec.  3702(d) (1996), it is not the 
purpose of those provisions to provide for payment simply because 
expenses are incurred pursuant to an erroneous authorization.  There 
must be a direct causal relationship between an agency error and the 
incurrance of expenses that the employee would not have otherwise 
incurred.[3]  There is nothing of record to suggest that the 
expectation of reimbursement for the expenses in question, i.e., 
travel per diem for his family and lodging and meal expenses for 
himself and his family in Homestead, Florida, pending occupancy of 
permanent quarters, influenced his decision to accept employment in 
the first instance.  Therefore, we do not believe that the 
circumstances here are sufficiently compelling to invoke the 
provisions of the Meritorious Claims Act.[4] 

Robert P. Murphy
General Counsel

1. Mr. G. A. Terrill  -  Reference DFAS-CO-LTP.

2. 5 U.S.C.  sec.  5724 and 5724a (1996).

3. David S. Shafer, 70 Comp. Gen. 717 (1991), citing to John H. Teele, 
65 Comp. Gen. 679 (1991).

4. Thomas G. Croymans, B-245203, June 15, 1992, and decisions cited.