B-130282, FEB. 13, 1957

B-130282: Feb 13, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM ASSIGNMENT AT HEADQUARTERS 8TH INFANTRY DIVISION. YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE RESIDING IN DENVER AT THE TIME OF YOUR CHANGE OF STATION. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BAR PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCE WHEN THE DEPENDENTS ARE LOCATED IN THE SAME CITY OR VICINITY OF THE NEW STATION AT DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDERS. EVEN THOUGH THE ACCOMPANYING TRAVEL IS LOCAL AND NOT SUCH AS IS PERFORMED OTHER THAN AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT IN THAT DECISION THAT A CHANGE IN DUTY ASSIGNMENT FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE SAME CITY IS NOT A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. THE CITED SECTION AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE TO A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE WHOSE DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE AND ACTUALLY MOVE "IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION" UNDER REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED.

B-130282, FEB. 13, 1957

TO MASTER SERGEANT MARVIN L. KENNAUGH, USA:

YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 21, 1956, REQUESTS REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 9, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO YOUR ORDERS DATED JULY 5, 1955.

BY PARAGRAPH 29, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 157, DATED JULY 5, 1955, YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM ASSIGNMENT AT HEADQUARTERS 8TH INFANTRY DIVISION, FORT CARSON, COLORADO, AND ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT DENVER, COLORADO. YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE RESIDING IN DENVER AT THE TIME OF YOUR CHANGE OF STATION. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BAR PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCE WHEN THE DEPENDENTS ARE LOCATED IN THE SAME CITY OR VICINITY OF THE NEW STATION AT DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDERS. YOU CONTEND YOUR CLAIM SHOULD BE ALLOWED SINCE IT PARALLELS THE CASE CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 13, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 113.

IN THAT DECISION WE HELD THAT PAYMENT OF DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE PROPERLY MAY BE MADE UPON A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE OF A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS IN CONNECTION WITH AN AUTHORIZED MOVEMENT OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, EVEN THOUGH THE ACCOMPANYING TRAVEL IS LOCAL AND NOT SUCH AS IS PERFORMED OTHER THAN AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. HOWEVER, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT IN THAT DECISION THAT A CHANGE IN DUTY ASSIGNMENT FROM ONE POINT TO ANOTHER WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE SAME CITY IS NOT A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS, SUCH AS WOULD AUTHORIZE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS UNDER 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.

THE CITED SECTION AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE TO A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE WHOSE DEPENDENTS ARE AUTHORIZED TO MOVE AND ACTUALLY MOVE "IN CONNECTION WITH HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION" UNDER REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED. PARAGRAPH 9002-1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WHEN DEPENDENTS HAVE COMPLETED TRAVEL IN CONNECTION WITH A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION "IF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS IS AUTHORIZED TO BE FURNISHED OR TRAVEL ALLOWANCES ARE AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID," AND PARAGRAPH 9003-6 OF SUCH REGULATIONS BARS PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION BETWEEN STATIONS LOCATED IN OR ADJACENT TO THE SAME METROPOLITAN AREA, UNLESS THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT THE NEW STATION MAKES A FINDING THAT THE CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WAS NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

THE ONLY "MOVE" BY YOUR DEPENDENTS AFTER YOUR PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM FORT CARSON TO DENVER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE CITY OF DENVER. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN A CERTIFICATE FROM THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT YOUR NEW STATION SHOWING THAT SUCH A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WAS NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF YOUR STATION AND ACCORDINGLY, ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, YOUR RIGHT TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS NOT ESTABLISHED. ON THAT BASIS THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 9, 1956, IS SUSTAINED.