B-129246, NOVEMBER 2, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 366

B-129246, NOVEMBER 2, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 366

MILITARY PERSONNEL - DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE - LOCAL MOVES AT PLACE OTHER THAN MEMBER'S STATION A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHOSE DEPENDENTS, INCIDENT TO THE MEMBER'S PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, MOVE WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO A PLACE WHICH IS NEITHER THE MEMBER'S OLD STATION NOR HIS NEW STATION IS NOT ENTITLED TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. WHETHER A CHANGE OF STATION FOR A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES NECESSITATES A MOVE BY THE MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS WITHIN THE LOCALITY OF THE NEW STATION TO ENTITLE THE MEMBER TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT THE NEW STATION.

TO LT. A. P. CONTAS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NOVEMBER 2, 1956:

BY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1956, FILE JAG:II:2:JAC:SH, THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY TRANSMITTED YOUR LETTER OF JULY 30, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING DECISION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF CREDITING MASTER SERGEANT JOSEPH D. CRONIN, 254092/0141 USMC, WITH A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED IN THE ENCLOSURES.

IT APPEARS THAT UPON THE MEMBER'S TRANSFER UNDER PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS DATED FEBRUARY 16, 1956, FROM DUTY OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE MARINE DETACHMENT, U.S. NAVAL AIR STATION, CHINCO TEAGUE, VIRGINIA, HIS DEPENDENTS WERE RESIDING ON MAIN STREET, MILLIS, MASSACHUSETTS, AND THAT FOLLOWING HIS ARRIVAL AT CHINCO TEAGUE HE MOVED HIS DEPENDENTS TO A DIFFERENT ADDRESS IN MILLIS.

IN SUBMITTING THE MATTER FOR ADVANCE DECISION YOU CITED OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1955, B-125494 (35 COMP. GEN. 167), AS CASTING DOUBT UPON THE PROPRIETY OF ALLOWING THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE CLAIMED. FORWARDING YOUR REQUEST HERE THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY EXPRESSED DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION OF AUGUST 13, 1956, B-128075 (36 COMP. GEN. 113), AND THE DEPUTY JUDGE ADVOCATE OF THE NAVY STATED THAT THE CASE APPEARS TO PRESENT TWO QUESTIONS, (1) THE EXTENT, IF ANY, TO WHICH A MEMBER MUST PROVE THAT THE MOVEMENT OF HIS DEPENDENTS WAS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, AND (2) WHETHER A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS PAYABLE, IN ANY EVENT, WHERE THE STATIONS FROM WHICH AND TO WHICH A MEMBER IS ORDERED ARE NOT WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE TOWN IN WHICH THE MOVEMENT OF DEPENDENTS TAKES PLACE.

SECTION 303 (C) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 2 (12) OF THE ACT OF MARCH 31, 1955, 69 STAT. 18, 21, 37 U.S.C. 253 C, PROVIDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT IN ADDITION TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE INCIDENT TO AN ORDERED CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHOSE DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE AND ACTUALLY MOVE "IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION" SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE EQUAL TO HIS MONTHLY BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF STATUTES PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS TO RELIEVE MEMBERS OF THE BURDEN OF PERSONALLY BEARING SUCH COSTS OCCASIONED BY ORDERED CHANGES OF STATION. UNDER THIS VIEW OF THOSE STATUTES IT LONG HAS BEEN THE GENERAL RULE THAT NO RIGHT ACCRUES TO REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS INCURRED BY A MEMBER IN MOVING HIS DEPENDENTS FROM ONE RESIDENCE TO ANOTHER IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA.

OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1955, 35 COMP. GEN. 167, INVOLVED A CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE BY A MEMBER WHOSE DEPENDENTS HAD MOVED FROM ONE RESIDENCE TO ANOTHER AT LA JOLLA ( SAN DIEGO), CALIFORNIA, FOLLOWING HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM OVERSEAS TO SAN DIEGO. WAS REPORTED THAT CLAIMANT'S LAST DUTY STATION IN THE UNITED STATES WAS AT SAN DIEGO; THAT HIS DEPENDENTS CONTINUED TO RESIDE AT THE SAME ADDRESS THERE DURING HIS TOUR OF OVERSEAS DUTY; AND THAT IT DID NOT APPEAR THAT THE CHANGE OF RESIDENCE FOLLOWING HIS REASSIGNMENT TO DUTY AT SAN DIEGO WAS TO AN AREA NEAR OR ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT DUTY STATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WAS DENIED UNDER AUTHORITY OF PARAGRAPH 9002 1, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH ALLOWANCE UPON COMPLETION OF TRAVEL OF DEPENDENTS "IF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED TO BE FURNISHED OR TRAVEL ALLOWANCES ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID.'

OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 13, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 113, WAS IN RESPONSE TO A SUBMISSION BY THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT OUR APPLICATION OF PARAGRAPH 9002-1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS IN THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1955, WOULD APPEAR ALSO TO BAR PAYMENT IN CASES IN WHICH A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS PRESENTLY AUTHORIZED UNDER PARAGRAPH 9003-6 OF THESE REGULATIONS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WAS AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF COMPENSATING MEMBERS FOR EXPENSES INHERENT IN THE RELOCATION OF THEIR HOUSEHOLD IN CONNECTION WITH A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, AND THAT THE REGULATIONS, AS PUBLISHED, WERE NOT INTENDED TO BAR PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IN EVERY INSTANCE INVOLVING A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WHOLLY WITHIN THE SAME CITY OR METROPOLITAN AREA.

THAT SUMMATION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE SEEMS CLEARLY CORRECT. IT SEEMS EQUALLY OBVIOUS, HOWEVER, THAT A DECISION TO RELOCATE HIS HOUSEHOLD AND THE INCURRING OF THE EXPENSES INHERENT IN SUCH RELOCATION COULD ARISE "IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION" ONLY WITH RESPECT TO A MEMBER WHO RESIDES WITH, OR PROPOSES TO RESIDE WITH, HIS DEPENDENTS. ALSO, PARAGRAPH 9003-6, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO A LOCAL RELOCATION OF A MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD UPON THE CERTIFICATION OF THE COMMANDING OFFICER THAT SUCH CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WAS NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, APPEARS TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASES OF MEMBERS WHOSE DEPENDENTS ORDINARILY RESIDE WITH THEM. HENCE, OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 13, 1956, WAS ADDRESSED TO SUCH CASES. WHERE A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS ARE WITH HIM AT HIS NEW PERMANENT STATION AS A RESULT OF A LOCAL MOVE, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT HIS COMMANDING OFFICER CAN READILY DETERMINE FROM THE CONDITIONS OF HIS ASSIGNMENT AND FROM OTHER FACTS IMMEDIATELY AT HAND WHETHER THE CHANGE IN RESIDENCE WAS NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. IN CASES SUCH AS THE ONE PRESENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION, HOWEVER, WHERE THE LOCAL MOVE IS BY DEPENDENTS AT A POINT WHICH IS NEITHER THE MEMBER'S OLD STATION NOR HIS NEW STATION, THE CONCLUSION APPEARS REQUIRED THAT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE REASONS WHICH MAY HAVE PROMPTED THE DEPENDENTS TO MOVE, SUCH MOVE IS IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH AN ORDERED CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION BUT IS MADE SOLELY FOR PERSONAL REASONS. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.

IT FOLLOWS THAT PAYMENT OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE CLAIMED BY SERGEANT CRONIN IS NOT AUTHORIZED. THE PAPERS IN THE CASE ARE RETAINED HERE.