February 6, 2007


                          CBCA 511-RELO


                In the Matter of MICHAEL V. LOPEZ 


     Michael V. Lopez, Lowden, IA, Claimant.

     Carrie Schaffer, Senior-Attorney Advisor, Civilian Personnel Advisory Center,
Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Rock Island, IL, appearing for Department of the
Army.

BORWICK, Board Judge.
     
     Claimant, Michael V. Lopez, a retired federal employee who was employed by the
United States Army, agency, contests the agency's denial of reimbursement of temporary
quarters subsistence expenses (TQSE) and the miscellaneous expense allowance (MEA)
arising from his overseas separation travel from Hawaii to Iowa.  The agency denied 
reimbursement of those expenses because under statute and regulation those expenses are
reimbursable only when an employee is relocating pursuant to a permanent change of station
(PCS), not relocating for separation.  We deny the claim.  In reaching its determination, the
agency correctly applied statute and the governing regulations, i.e., the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR) and the Joint Travel Regulations (JTR).  An erroneous travel authorization
that purported to grant claimant reimbursement of the MEA does not enlarge claimant's
entitlement beyond the limits established by statute and regulation.  

                            Background  

     Claimant was an equipment specialist with the United States Army Tank and
Armaments Command, permanently stationed in Honolulu, Hawaii.  On or about September
14, 2004, claimant submitted to the agency a request for separation--by retirement--from the
federal service, with an effective date of October 31, 2004.  On September 23, 2004, the
agency authorized claimant's travel from Honolulu to Rock Island, Illinois, for the purpose
of returning from overseas for separation.  Claimant's final destination was Lowden, Iowa,
which is about forty-five miles distant from Rock Island.  The agency did not authorize
reimbursement of TQSE.  Block 16 of the authorization granted claimant the MEA, as well
as reimbursement of other benefits.  

     Claimant left Hawaii for Iowa on or about October 22, 2004.  On or about November
9, 2004, the agency issued a Standard Form 50 acknowledging claimant's retirement with an
effective date of October 31.  On or about December 30, 2004, claimant submitted to the
agency a reimbursement voucher claiming reimbursement of certain expenses for his
authorized travel from Honolulu to Rock Island.  Claimant sought reimbursement of $1000
for the MEA and $749 for TQSE incurred from October 22 through 31, 2004.  The agency
disallowed reimbursement of those expenses and claimant challenges the agency's
disallowance at the Board.  

                            Discussion

     An employee who travels on an authorized PCS in the interest of the Government may
receive, upon the agency's approval, reimbursement of TQSE and the MEA.  5 U.S.C.
 5724, 5724a (2000).  However, claimant's travel was for the purpose of returning to the
continental United States from overseas--Hawaii--for separation.  Such a trip is not
considered PCS travel for the purpose of satisfying statutory requirements.  William D.
Dooley, GSBCA 16107-RELO, 04-1 BCA  32,451 (2003); Frederick J. Barth, GSBCA
15432-RELO, 01-1 BCA  31,331.  Instead, employees who are authorized return from
overseas for separation receive the less generous package of benefits which new appointees
receive.  Those benefits do not include reimbursement of TQSE or the MEA.  5 U.S.C. 
5722, 5724(d); 41 CFR 302-6.5, -16.3; JTR C5085 (2004).  In refusing to pay claimant for
the MEA and TQSE incurred, the agency followed statute and regulation.  

     Claimant maintains that the agency authorized MEA and that he is entitled to
reimbursement of the MEA for that reason.  The agency's authorization for reimbursement
of the MEA was erroneous, as payment of the MEA would violate statute and regulation. 
It is settled that an erroneous authorization does not enlarge an employee's entitlement
beyond the limits established by statute or regulation.  Dooley; Barth.  The Board must deny
the claim.

__________________________
                                   ANTHONY S. BORWICK
                                   Board Judge