B-155606, FEB. 10, 1965

B-155606: Feb 10, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

HAMPTON: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 4. YOU WERE TRANSFERRED ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM PORT HUENEME. YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THAT AT THAT TIME YOU DID NOT CONSIDER MOVING YOUR FAMILY FROM CALIFORNIA SINCE YOU WERE PURCHASING A RETIREMENT HOME THERE. THE CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL. YOU WERE PAYING FOR AN AUTOMOBILE AND YOU EXPECTED TO BE DEPLOYED AWAY FROM DAVISVILLE. YOU STATED THAT YOUR WIFE VISITED WITH YOU AT DAVISVILLE IN 1963 AND THAT AFTER SHE RETURNED TO CALIFORNIA YOU PURCHASED A SMALL HOUSE AT DAVISVILLE WHICH WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR FAMILY. YOUR CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 9.

B-155606, FEB. 10, 1965

TO MR. WILLIAM L. HAMPTON:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1964, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 9, 1964, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER TO AN ACTIVITY AT DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND, ON MAY 6, 1960.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT IN MAY 1960, YOU WERE TRANSFERRED ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, TO DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND, FOR FURTHER TRANSFER TO MOBILE CONSTRUCTION BATTALION SEVEN. YOU HAVE EXPLAINED THAT AT THAT TIME YOU DID NOT CONSIDER MOVING YOUR FAMILY FROM CALIFORNIA SINCE YOU WERE PURCHASING A RETIREMENT HOME THERE, THE CHILDREN WERE IN SCHOOL, YOU WERE PAYING FOR AN AUTOMOBILE AND YOU EXPECTED TO BE DEPLOYED AWAY FROM DAVISVILLE. ALSO, YOU STATED THAT YOUR WIFE VISITED WITH YOU AT DAVISVILLE IN 1963 AND THAT AFTER SHE RETURNED TO CALIFORNIA YOU PURCHASED A SMALL HOUSE AT DAVISVILLE WHICH WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR AND NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE YOUR FAMILY; THAT AFTER YOU REPAIRED THE HOUSE YOUR WIFE AND TWO SONS ARRIVED AT YOUR RESIDENCE IN DAVISVILLE ON JUNE 20, 1964; THAT YOUR TWO DAUGHTERS REMAINED AT YOUR HOME AT PORT HUENEME AND THAT AFTER A SHORT PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS YOUR WIFE AND ONE SON RETURNED TO THE HOME IN CALIFORNIA. ONE SON, AGE 23, REMAINED WITH YOU. YOUR CLAIM FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 9, 1964, FOR THE REASON THAT IT APPEARED THAT THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF A VISIT RATHER THAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE RESIDENCE OF YOUR DEPENDENTS.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU SAY THAT IN JUNE 1964, YOUR DEPENDENTS MOVED TO DAVISVILLE, RHODE ISLAND, TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE; THAT YOUR WIFE RETURNED TO CALIFORNIA TEMPORARILY TO ARRANGE FOR THE SALE OF YOUR HOME THERE; THAT YOU HAVE ENLARGED YOUR HOME AT DAVISVILLE AND THAT IF YOU COULD ARRANGE FOR THE LEAVE YOU INTENDED TO GO TO CALIFORNIA DURING THE CHRISTMAS SCHOOL VACATION TO ASSIST YOUR WIFE IN MOVING YOUR CHILDREN AND FURNITURE TO YOUR HOME AT DAVISVILLE.

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 37 U.S.C. 406 AND 407 AUTHORITY IS PROVIDED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES CONCERNED, FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF A MEMBER'S DEPENDENT AND HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND FOR THE PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO A DIRECTED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. PARAGRAPH 7000-13 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PROMULGATED PURSUANT TO THAT PROVISION OF LAW, AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME, PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR ANY TRAVEL TO A PLACE AT WHICH THEY DO NOT INTEND TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE, AND THAT TRAVEL EXPENSES OF DEPENDENTS FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN WITH INTENT TO CHANGE THE DEPENDENTS' RESIDENCE MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AN OBLIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENT.

THUS, THE RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT AN ALLOWANCE PAYABLE IN ALL EVENTS ON THE BASIS THAT SOME TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED. EVEN THOUGH TRAVEL IS PERFORMED, NO RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT ARISES UNLESS THE TRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE RESULTING FROM AN ORDERED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. 33 COMP. GEN. 431. PARAGRAPH 9003-2 OF THE REGULATIONS PROVIDES FURTHER THAT A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS NOT PAYABLE IN CONNECTION WITH PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION TRAVEL PERFORMED FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN TO ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE.

IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOU CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN YOUR HOME IN CALIFORNIA AT THE TIME YOUR WIFE AND TWO OF YOUR CHILDREN CAME TO DAVISVILLE, AND SINCE SHE AND THE YOUNGEST SON REMAINED FOR ONLY A SHORT PERIOD DURING THE SUMMER SCHOOL VACATION BEFORE RETURNING TO THE CALIFORNIA HOME TO RESIDE, WE MAY NOT PROPERLY CONCLUDE THAT THE TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOUR DEPENDENTS TO DAVISVILLE IN JUNE 1964 WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A RESIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE GOVERNING REGULATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF SUCH TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS TO DAVISVILLE AND PAYMENT OF A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 9, 1964, IS SUSTAINED.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A LIMITATION AS TO WHEN YOUR DEPENDENTS MAY TRAVEL TO DAVISVILLE AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE INCIDENT TO YOUR TRANSFER THERE, IT MAY BE STATED THAT UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS A DULY AUTHORIZED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION ORDER FIXES THE MEMBER'S RIGHT TO TRANSPORTATION OF HIS DEPENDENTS AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WITHIN PRESCRIBED LIMITATIONS FROM THE OLD PERMANENT STATION TO THE NEW. THERE IS NO LIMITATION AS TO THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH A MEMBER'S DEPENDENTS MUST TRAVEL TO THE NEW PERMANENT STATION TO JOIN HIM, EXCEPT WHERE HE IS LEAVING THE SERVICE OR RECEIVES AN ASSIGNMENT TO SOME SUBSEQUENT PERMANENT STATION. BOTH THE DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL ALLOWANCE AND THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE ARE PREDICATED UPON AN ACTUAL MOVEMENT OF THE MEMBER'S FAMILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELOCATING HIS HOUSEHOLD INCIDENT TO HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

IN THE EVENT YOUR DEPENDENTS HAVE NOW MOVED FROM CALIFORNIA TO YOUR RESIDENCE IN DAVISVILLE AND ARE RESIDING WITH YOU, IT MAY BE THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO THEIR TRAVEL TO YOUR DUTY STATION. IF SUCH TRAVEL HAS BEEN PERFORMED IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU PRESENT A CLAIM THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS SHOWING THE DATES THE PRESENT TRAVEL WAS COMMENCED AND COMPLETED, AND THE NAMES, AGES AND RELATIONSHIP OF THE DEPENDENTS.