B-165470, JANUARY 6, 1969, 48 COMP. GEN. 457

B-165470, JANUARY 6, 1969, 48 COMP. GEN. 457

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - IMMEDIATE FAMILY - UNDER-AGE DIVORCED DAUGHTER THE 17-YEAR OLD DIVORCED DAUGHTER OF A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE AT AN OVERSEAS DUTY POST UNDER A RENEWAL CONTRACT WHO IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT HERSELF AND HER INFANT DAUGHTER AND TEMPORARILY RESIDES WITH A SISTER IN THE UNITED STATES MAY BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 1.2D OF THE BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS NOT LIVING UNDER HIS ROOF AT THE TIME HIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WAS RENEWED OR THAT HE HAD NOT PERFORMED HOME LEAVE TRAVEL INCIDENT TO THAT CONTRACT. HOWEVER, THE GRANDCHILD IS EXCLUDED FROM THE TERM ,IMMEDIATE FAMILY" THEREFORE LIMITING THE EMPLOYEE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT OF THE ONE-WAY TRAVEL OF HIS DAUGHTER, NOT TO EXCEED THE CONSTRUCTIVE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES FROM HIS UNITED STATES PLACE OF RESIDENCE TO THE OVERSEAS DUTY STATION.

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, JANUARY 6, 1969:

THIS IS IN REPLY TO LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1968, REFERENCE SEEO/ICE,00/SWW, SER: 766, FROM THE COMMANDER, NAVAL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMMAND, CENTRAL ATLANTIC DIVISION, FORWARDED HERE BY THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE 17 YEAR OLD DIVORCED DAUGHTER OF MR. ELDRED J. DAIGRE, AN EMPLOYEE OF YOUR DEPARTMENT, AND HER INFANT DAUGHTER MAY BE TRANSPORTED TO THE EMPLOYEE'S OVERSEAS POST AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED BELOW.

ON JUNE 29, 1968, MR. DAIGRE COMPLETED HIS 1-YEAR CONTRACT WITH THE NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS STATION, KEFLAVIK, ICELAND. ON THE FOLLOWING DAY HE TRANSFERRED TO THE NAVAL ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS COMMAND AT THE SAME DUTY STATION PURSUANT TO A RENEWAL CONTRACT FOR 1 YEAR. MR. DAIGRE'S WIFE AND SON HAD PREVIOUSLY JOINED HIM AND HE RETAINED HIS HOME IN KEFLAVIK. JUNE 7, 1968, MR. DAIGRE'S DAUGHTER WAS DIVORCED AND AWARDED CUSTODY OF AN INFANT DAUGHTER BORN APRIL 1968. THE DAUGHTER, WHO IS TO RECEIVE $20 PER WEEK FOR CHILD SUPPORT, IS PRESENTLY LIVING WITH AN OLDER MARRIED SISTER IN IDAHO. HOWEVER, SINCE MR. DAIGRE'S DAUGHTER CANNOT CONTINUE TO LIVE WITH HER SISTER INDEFINITELY, SHE IS INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING THE NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR HERSELF AND HER CHILD, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO CAN PROVIDE A HOME AND SUPPORT, MR. DAIGRE HAS PROPOSED THAT SHE AND HER DAUGHTER RETURN TO LIVE WITH HER PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS IN ICELAND PERMANENTLY. ON JULY 17, 1968, MR. DAIGRE REQUESTED IN WRITING THAT THE GOVERNMENT GRANT THEM ENTRY AND PAY THEIR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES.

SECTION 1.2D OF BUREAU OF THE BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56 (INCORPORATED INTO VOLUME II OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS) DEFINES "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" AS FOLLOWS:

* * * ANY OF THE FOLLOWING NAMED MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD AT THE TIME HE REPORTS FOR DUTY AT HIS NEW PERMANENT DUTY STATION OR PERFORMS AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED HOME LEAVE OR SEPARATION TRAVEL: SPOUSE, CHILDREN (INCLUDING STEPCHILDREN AND ADOPTED CHILDREN) UNMARRIED AND UNDER TWENTY- ONE YEARS OF AGE OR PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THEMSELVES REGARDLESS OF AGE, OR DEPENDENT PARENTS OF THE EMPLOYEE AND OF THE EMPLOYEE'S SPOUSE.

FOR A PERSON TO BE COVERED BY THIS DEFINITION AND CONSEQUENTLY ENTITLED TO THE TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE IN SECTION 2.2 OF THE CIRCULAR IT WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THAT PERSON TO BE ONE OF THE NAMED INDIVIDUALS AND A MEMBER OF THE HOUSEHOLD.

MR. DAIGRE'S 17-YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS DIVORCED AND IS, THEREFORE,UNMARRIED AND ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS NAMED IN THE DEFINITION. WITH RESPECT TO THE TERM "HOUSEHOLD," THERE IS NO DEFINITION THEREOF IN THE CIRCULAR. IT IS ONE OF UNCERTAIN MEANING AND PEOPLE MAY BE MEMBERS OF THE SAME HOUSEHOLD EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT LIVING UNDER THE SAME ROOF. HOWEVER, IN SUCH A CASE THE PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO BE A MEMBER OF A HOUSEHOLD HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF ESTABLISHING THAT HE IS A MEMBER. SEE CROSSFIELD V. PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, 187 A.2D20 (1962).

IN THE INSTANT CASE THE YOUNGER DAUGHTER'S RESIDENCE WITH HER OLDER SISTER WAS A TEMPORARY EXPEDIENT. WE ASSUME THAT SHE AND HER CHILD WOULD HAVE JOINED MR. DAIGRE IMMEDIATELY AFTER HER DIVORCE HAD HE NOT RESIDED OVERSEAS. IN THIS CONNECTION THE RECORD INDICATES THAT WITHIN 3 DAYS AFTER MR. DAIGRE WAS ADVISED OF THE DIVORCE ON JUNE 19, 1968, HE REQUESTED HIS DAUGHTER TO FORWARD COPIES OF THE DIVORCE DECREE AND THE BABY'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE SO HE MIGHT TAKE STEPS TO HAVE HIS DAUGHTER AND HER BABY JOIN HIM. AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENTS, MR. DAIGRE REQUESTED THEIR ENTRY AND PAYMENT OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DAUGHTER AND HER BABY MAY BE CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THE EMPLOYEE'S HOUSEHOLD ON JUNE 30, 1968. SEE B- 161408, JUNE 1, 1967.

THE FACT THAT MR. DAIGRE DID NOT PERFORM HOME LEAVE TRAVEL TO WHICH HE WAS ENTITLED UNDER HIS RENEWAL CONTRACT DOES NOT AFFECT HIS ENTITLEMENT TO PAYMENT OF THE ONE-WAY TRAVEL EXPENSES TO THE OVERSEAS STATION OF PERSONS WHO WERE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RENEWAL CONTRACT AND WHO HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY JOINED HIM OVERSEAS. SEE B-137605, MARCH 17, 1961. THEREFORE, PAYMENT OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES OF MR. DAIGRE'S DAUGHTER MAY BE AUTHORIZED TO THE EXTENT THEY DO NOT EXCEED THE CONSTRUCTIVE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES FROM MR. DAIGRE'S UNITED STATES PLACE OF RESIDENCE TO ICELAND. HOWEVER, THE GRANDDAUGHTER MAY NOT BE TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE SINCE SHE IS NOT EMBRACED WITHIN THE TERM "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" AS DEFINED IN THE CIRCULAR. SEE B-135091, MARCH 4, 1958.