B-204564, MAY 28, 1982
Highlights
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS WHICH HAVE HELD THAT CHILDREN OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHO DO NOT LIVE WITH THE EMPLOYEE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. AITKEN ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL NO LONGER PAY THE HOME LEAVE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF THEIR GRANDCHILDREN FROM ALASKA TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES SINCE THEIR SON. IS NOW DIVORCED AND DOES NOT HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. THE HOME LEAVE TRAVEL OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY IS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 5728 OF TITLE 5. FTR PARA. 2-1.4D DEFINES THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" TO INCLUDE ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD AT THE TIME THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION IS PERFORMED. THEY ARE NO LONGER MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
B-204564, MAY 28, 1982
PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE
THE HONORABLE DANIEL P. MOYNIHAN:
THIS RESPONDS TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 5, 1982, IN WHICH YOU FORWARDED CORRESPONDENCE DATED MARCH 25, 1982, FROM YOUR CONSTITUENTS, FLOYD AND THERESE AITKEN. MR. AND MRS. AITKEN CONTACTED YOU REGARDING COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION MATTER OF RAYNOR, B-187241, JULY 5, 1977, AND SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS WHICH HAVE HELD THAT CHILDREN OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE WHO DO NOT LIVE WITH THE EMPLOYEE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. MR. AND MRS. AITKEN ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WILL NO LONGER PAY THE HOME LEAVE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF THEIR GRANDCHILDREN FROM ALASKA TO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES SINCE THEIR SON, A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE STATIONED IN ALASKA, IS NOW DIVORCED AND DOES NOT HAVE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN. THE RAYNOR DECISION DOES PRECLUDE PAYMENT OF DEPENDENT'S TRAVEL EXPENSES IN SUCH A SITUATION.
THE HOME LEAVE TRAVEL OF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE AND HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY IS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 5728 OF TITLE 5, U.S.C. AS IMPLEMENTED BY REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE FEDERAL TRAVEL REGULATIONS (FPMR 101-7) (FTR). FTR PARA. 2-1.4D DEFINES THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" TO INCLUDE ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD AT THE TIME THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION IS PERFORMED. SINCE MR. AND MRS. AITKEN'S GRANDCHILDREN NO LONGER LIVE WITH THEIR SON, THEY ARE NO LONGER MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. THUS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS, THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR TRAVEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.
SECTION 5728 IS ONE OF SEVERAL AUTHORITIES CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 57 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE FOR PAYMENT OF EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRAVEL OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. INSOFAR AS THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE CONCERNED, THESE TRAVEL BENEFITS EXTEND ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S "IMMEDIATE FAMILY." SINCE THESE STATUTES ARE PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH RELOCATING AN EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD INCIDENT TO RELOCATION ACTIONS, WE BELIEVE THE REGULATIONS APPROPRIATELY DEFINE THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" TO INCLUDE ONLY THOSE NAMED INDIVIDUALS WHO CONSTITUTE HIS OR HER HOUSEHOLD.
AS INDICATED BY THE ENCLOSURES FORWARDED WITH MR. AND MRS. AITKEN'S LETTER, THE AITKEN FAMILY, BY OUR FEBRUARY 22, 1980 LETTER TO SENATOR STEVENS, HAS ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS. TOGETHER WITH THAT LETTER THEY WERE PROVIDED COPIES OF OUR DECISIONS HOLDING THAT THE CHILDREN OF A DIVORCED EMPLOYEE WHO ARE NOT IN HIS OR HER CUSTODY AND WHO IN FACT RESIDE WITH THE OTHER SPOUSE FOR ALL BUT BRIEF PERIODS OF VISITATION ARE NOT MEMBERS OF HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY.
I UNDERSTAND THE AITKEN'S CONCERN THAT THEIR SON'S CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO VISIT PERIODICALLY WITH THEIR GRANDCHILDREN. I DOUBT THAT IT WILL MAKE THE SITUATION ANY MORE PALATABLE TO AGAIN EXPLAIN THAT THE APPLICABLE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES OF FAMILY MEMBERS WHO DO NOT LIVE WITH THE EMPLOYEE. AS YOU REQUESTED, WE ARE RETURNING THE MATERIAL FORWARDED WITH YOU LETTER.