Skip to main content

Entitlement to Temporary Storage

B-199110 Mar 30, 1981
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

The issue raised in an appeal of a settlement of the Claims Division was whether an Army officer on a permanent change of station was entitled to temporary storage of household goods. The goods were moved from Government quarters to a storage facility and then to a residence in the same city as the old duty station. The officer was directed to make a permanent change of station. Some of the officer's household goods apparently were shipped to the new duty station at his request. But on an application for shipment or storage of personal property, the officer authorized the greater part of his household goods to be placed in temporary storage or as designated by his wife or another officer. The agent designated on the application to receive the property at destination was the officer's wife. Apparently, the wife was not accompanying the officer to his new duty station. She was authorized to remain in Government quarters at the old duty station. The wife had the household goods placed in temporary storage. Although the Army assumed the cost of the drayage of the household goods, the officer was billed for the storage charges. The officer protested the storage charges, asserting that his wife had no authority to have the household goods placed in storage and, in any event, the Government should pay the charges. Federal regulations provide that temporary storage is storage authorized in connection with a shipment of permanent change-of-station weight allowance of household goods. Entitlement to temporary storage of household goods not already under Government control commences on the date the household goods are released to a carrier, contractor, or the Government for shipment. In addition, the regulations state that the member will bear all costs of temporary storage when household goods placed therein pursuant to permanent change of station orders are not shipped under such orders. The officer's contention that he could not be held responsible for the storage charges because his wife had no authority to place the goods in storage, could not be sustained. The record showed that the officer's wife was authorized as the agent to receive the property at destination and there was no evidence that the authorization was ever revoked. Therefore, the Army not only had a right but an obligation to rely upon the instructions and designation of the agent that the officer gave. Accordingly, the settlement of the Claims Division was sustained.

Downloads

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs