B-177709, MAR 13, 1973

B-177709: Mar 13, 1973

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS ENTITLED TO THE 11. 000 POUND WEIGHT LIMITATION ON THE SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM APPLICATION OF THE 5. THE RECORD INDICATES THAT MISS ARENDES WAS TRANSFERRED FROM WASHINGTON. HER HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE SHIPPED ON A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING AND TOTALED 7. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT SHE WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5. IT IS SHOWN THAT MISS ARENDES IS HEAD OF A HOUSEHOLD OF FIVE PERSONS. THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS OWNED BY MISS ARENDES WERE ACQUIRED DURING THE PERIOD THAT SHE WAS SOLE SUPPORT OF HER MOTHER. A-56 CONCERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS WORDED IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS: 6.2 GENERAL LIMITATIONS A.

B-177709, MAR 13, 1973

CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - CHANGE OF STATION - SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS - WEIGHT LIMITATIONS - "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" - HARDSHIP WAIVER DECISION ALLOWING ALL OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS OF MARIE ARENDES, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, TO BE SHIPPED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE INCIDENT TO HER TRANSFER FROM WASHINGTON, D. C., TO SAN DIEGO, CALIF. AN EMPLOYEE WHO HAS NO IMMEDIATE FAMILY AS DEFINED IN OMB CIRCULAR NO. A- 56, SECTION 1.2D, BUT WHO HAS ACQUIRED A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF HER PROPERTY BECAUSE SHE HAS BEEN THE HEAD OF A LARGER HOUSEHOLD, IS ENTITLED TO THE 11,000 POUND WEIGHT LIMITATION ON THE SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM APPLICATION OF THE 5,000 POUND LIMIT, OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-56, SECTION 6.2A.

TO MR. DONALD E. MULDOON:

WE REFER FURTHER TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 20, 1972, ALONG WITH YOUR SUBSEQUENT LETTER OF JANUARY 17, 1973, REQUESTING OUR DETERMINATION AS TO THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHICH MAY BE TRANSPORTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FOR MISS MARIE ARENDES, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD); IN CONNECTION WITH HER OFFICIAL CHANGE OF STATION.

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT MISS ARENDES WAS TRANSFERRED FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, IN OCTOBER 1972. HER HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE SHIPPED ON A GOVERNMENT BILL OF LADING AND TOTALED 7,580 POUNDS. SINCE SHE DID NOT QUALIFY AS "AN EMPLOYEE WITH IMMEDIATE FAMILY" UNDER SECTION 6.2A OF OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR NO. A-56, REVISED AUGUST 17, 1971, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT SHE WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 5,000 POUNDS OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS SHIPPED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, AND SHE HAS BEEN ASKED TO REIMBURSE THE GOVERNMENT FOR COSTS INCURRED IN SHIPPING THE EXCESS POUNDAGE. YOU POINT OUT THE "HARDSHIP" PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6.2A OF CIRCULAR NO. A 56 AND THE CORRESPONDING PROVISIONS OF HUD REGULATIONS, AND QUESTION WHETHER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, HUD MAY LEGALLY ASSUME THE COST OF SHIPPING THE EXCESS POUNDAGE OF MISS ARENDES' HOUSEHOLD GOODS.

IT IS SHOWN THAT MISS ARENDES IS HEAD OF A HOUSEHOLD OF FIVE PERSONS, INCLUDING HERSELF AND FOUR ELDERLY BROTHERS AND SISTERS, AND THAT SHE HAS BEEN THE SOLE SUPPORT OF THESE BROTHERS AND SISTERS SINCE 1967. ONE BROTHER AND ONE SISTER REQUIRE EXTENSIVE MEDICAL CARE. FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAX PURPOSES, MISS ARENDES HAS HELD A HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD STATUS SINCE 1955, HAVING BEEN SOLE SUPPORT OF HER INVALID MOTHER FROM THAT TIME UNTIL HER MOTHER'S DEATH IN 1967. THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOODS OWNED BY MISS ARENDES WERE ACQUIRED DURING THE PERIOD THAT SHE WAS SOLE SUPPORT OF HER MOTHER.

SECTION 6.2A OF CIRCULAR NO. A-56 CONCERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IS WORDED IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

6.2 GENERAL LIMITATIONS

A. MAXIMUM WEIGHT ALLOWANCE. THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHICH MAY BE TRANSPORTED OR STORED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH IS LIMITED TO 11,000 POUNDS NET WEIGHT FOR EMPLOYEES WITH IMMEDIATE FAMILIES AND 5,000 POUNDS NET WEIGHT FOR EMPLOYEES WITHOUT IMMEDIATE FAMILIES. HOWEVER, IF IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE AN EMPLOYEE WITHOUT IMMEDIATE FAMILY POSSESSES HOUSEHOLD GOODS EXCEEDING THE 5,000-POUND LIMIT, THE LIMIT MAY BE EXTENDED UP TO 11,000 POUNDS NET WEIGHT; PROVIDED THAT (1) THE EMPLOYEE ACQUIRED ALL OR A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN THE HEAD OF OR A MEMBER OF A LARGER HOUSEHOLD (AS WHEN THE EMPLOYEE'S SPOUSE HAS DIED), AND (2) IT IS DETERMINED UNDER REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD THAT HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM APPLICATION OF THE 5,000-POUND LIMIT. ***

"IMMEDIATE FAMILY" IS DEFINED IN SECTION 1.2D OF THE CIRCULAR:

D. "IMMEDIATE FAMILY" MEANS 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 OVERSEAS TOUR RENEWAL AGREEMENT TRAVEL OR SEPARATION TRAVEL: SPOUSE, CHILDREN (INCLUDING STEP- CHILDREN 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.

IT IS APPARENT THAT UNDER THE DEFINITION OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY MISS ARENDES COULD NOT QUALIFY FOR THE LARGER HOUSEHOLD ALLOWANCE DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE IS THE SOLE SUPPORT OF HER BROTHERS AND SISTERS. HOWEVER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MISS ARENDES IS ENTITLED TO THE LARGER ALLOWANCE UNDER THE EXCEPTION SET OUT IN SECTION 6.2A(1), SUPRA, CONCERNING INDIVIDUAL CASES OF EMPLOYEES WITHOUT AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY. MISS ARENDES ACQUIRED THE SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF HER HOUSEHOLD GOODS WHILE THE HEAD OF A HOUSEHOLD WHICH CONSISTED IN PART OF HER TOTALLY DEPENDENT MOTHER. IT IS CLEAR THAT HAD MISS ARENDES BEEN TRANSFERRED WHILE HER MOTHER WAS LIVING SHE COULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR THE LARGER ALLOWANCE BECAUSE HER MOTHER WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF "IMMEDIATE FAMILY."

THEREFORE, SINCE THERE HAS BEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION THAT HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT FROM APPLICATION OF THE 5,000-POUND LIMIT AND SINCE MISS ARENDES ACQUIRED THE SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF HER PROPERTY AT A TIME WHEN SHE WAS THE HEAD OF A HOUSEHOLD WHICH INCLUDED HER DEPENDENT MOTHER, THIS OFFICE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION OF THE HIGHER WEIGHT LIMIT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.