B-251041, March 18, 1993

B-251041, March 18, 1993

MILITARY PERSONNEL Relocation Dislocation allowances Eligibilitiy A member received Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders to Saudi Arabia with concurrent travel for his dependents. After they vacated their permanent quarters, his orders were amended to allow only the member to travel. His dependents were considered to have been evacuated to a safe haven. The member received a Dislocation Allowance (DLA) when his dependents' safe haven became their designated place. The member's claim for an additional DLA for a PCS is denied because his dependents did not complete a move to a new location before his orders were amended. He is not entitled to a DLA as a member without dependents because he occupied government quarters following both his PCSs.

Major George E. Bricker, USA 51 Bassett Street Fort Bragg, NC 28307

Dear Major Bricker:

This is in response to your appeal of Claims Group settlement Z-2867940, dated September 3, 1992, which denied your claim for a Dislocation Allowance (DLA) based on a Permanent Change of Station (PCS). That settlement is affirmed.

The record indicates that on July 30, 1990, you moved out of permanent quarters at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, pursuant to orders which authorized your dependents to travel with you to Saudi Arabia. You and your dependents were living in temporary quarters and in possession of a port call when you were ordered to proceed to Saudi Arabia without your dependents. On August 8, 1990, your dependents traveled to Atlanta, Georgia, but returned to Fort Bragg within 2 weeks. They eventually returned to permanent quarters at Fort Bragg. They received per diem allowances while they remained in evacuation status. You received a DLA based on their evacuation status, and you claim a second DLA based on a PCS.

Your dependents were considered to have been evacuated because they were in possession of a port call and had disestablished their household and moved to temporary quarters as required by volume 1 of the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), paragraph U6005, in effect at that time (now U6004).

The purpose of a DLA paid in connection with an evacuation is to help a member with dependents cover expenses incurred in relocating a household due to an evacuation. An evacuation DLA is payable when dependents are evacuated to a designated place or when a safe haven is determined to be a designated place. See 1 JFTR para. U6035, in effect at the time (now U6012). You thus became entitled to a DLA for your dependents when it was determined that Fort Bragg was the designated place where they would remain while you served in Saudi Arabia. A DLA is not payable for relocation to a safe haven because dependents are not considered to have set up a permanent household at a safe haven. See 47 Comp.Gen. 575 (1968).

You assert that you are entitled to a DLA due to the relocation of your dependents from permanent to temporary quarters at Fort Bragg. You apparently base your argument on 1 JFTR para. U5630-B7. However, that paragraph does not pertain to your situation. The first sentence refers to a member whose orders are amended, modified, canceled, or revoked to direct him to return to the station from which he was transferred. The second covers those who actually complete their move to a new location in accordance the member's PCS orders before the orders are amended, modified, canceled, or revoked. The amendment of your orders in August 1990 did not reassign you to Fort Bragg at that time, and your family did not complete a move to a new location before your orders were amended. Moreover, their travel to Atlanta does not entitle you to a DLA because they did not establish a household there.

We find no error in law or fact in the Claims Group's determination, which is accordingly affirmed.