B-90278, DECEMBER 19, 1949, 29 COMP. GEN. 280

B-90278: Dec 19, 1949

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

A MEMBER IS NOT ENTITLED TO INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT WHO. NO OBJECTION WILL BE MADE TO OTHERWISE PROPER ALLOWANCES FOR PERIODS OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF THE PARENT FOR HOSPITALIZATION. REQUESTING DECISION ON A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE ARISEN. OR WILL ARISE. PROVIDED HE OR SHE IS IN FACT DEPENDENT ON SUCH MEMBER FOR OVER HALF OF HIS OR HER SUPPORT AND ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER * * *. THE FIRST FIVE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ARE CLOSELY RELATED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS: (1) ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL DIFFICULTIES WILL ARISE IN THE CASE OF PERSONNEL WHO ARE ORDERED OVERSEAS. WHERE QUARTERS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL.

B-90278, DECEMBER 19, 1949, 29 COMP. GEN. 280

QUARTERS - BASIC ALLOWANCE - DEPENDENT PARENTS - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS THE LAW PERMITS NO EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 102 (G) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949 THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTING QUARTERS ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, A DEPENDENT PARENT MUST ALSO ACTUALLY RESIDE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE MEMBER, AND A MEMBER IS NOT ENTITLED TO INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT WHO, FOR ANY REASON, RESIDES ELSEWHERE THAN IN THE HOUSE MAINTAINED BY THE MEMBER FOR HIMSELF AND THOSE ACTUALLY LIVING WITH HIM. ALTHOUGH SECTION 102 (G) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949 REQUIRES, FOR PURPOSES OF INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, THAT DEPENDENT PARENTS RESIDE IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD, NO OBJECTION WILL BE MADE TO OTHERWISE PROPER ALLOWANCES FOR PERIODS OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF THE PARENT FOR HOSPITALIZATION, SHORT VISITS, ETC., PROVIDED THE PARENT LIVED IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE MEMBER AT HIS PERMANENT STATION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ABSENCE, AND RETURNED THERETO AFTER AN ABSENCE NOT EXCEEDING THREE MONTHS AT ONE TIME OR AN AGGREGATE OF NINETY- ONE DAYS IN ANY SIX MONTHS' PERIOD.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, DECEMBER 19, 1949:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 27, 1949, REQUESTING DECISION ON A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS WHICH HAVE ARISEN, OR WILL ARISE, UNDER THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, PUBLIC LAW 351, APPROVED OCTOBER 12, 1949, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAYMENT OF AN INCREASED BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE ACT, 63 STAT. 812, TO MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION IN SECTION 102 (G) OF THE ACT, 63 STAT. 804, DEFINING THE TERM "DEPENDENT" AS INCLUDING, INTER ALIA,---

* * * THE FATHER OR MOTHER OF SUCH MEMBER, PROVIDED HE OR SHE IS IN FACT DEPENDENT ON SUCH MEMBER FOR OVER HALF OF HIS OR HER SUPPORT AND ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER * * *.

THE FIRST FIVE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED ARE CLOSELY RELATED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

(1) ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL DIFFICULTIES WILL ARISE IN THE CASE OF PERSONNEL WHO ARE ORDERED OVERSEAS, WHERE QUARTERS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL, AND SUCH DEPENDENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO JOIN THE MEMBER OF THE SERVICE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD. IF THE MEMBER MAINTAINS A HOUSEHOLD IN THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH THE DEPENDENT PARENT RESIDES, WILL THIS FACT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ACT THAT SAID DEPENDENT "ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER? " IN THIS CONNECTION, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO SECTION 302 (D) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"/D) NO MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ASSIGNED TO GOVERNMENT QUARTERS OR HOUSING FACILITIES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES SHALL BE DENIED HIS BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS IF, BY REASON OF ORDERS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY, HIS DEPENDENTS ARE PREVENTED FROM OCCUPYING SUCH QUARTERS.'

(2) THERE WILL ALSO BE CASES WHERE A MEMBER IS ORDERED OVERSEAS AND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE DEPENDENT TO ACCOMPANY THE MEMBER (A) BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER AGE AND/OR PHYSICAL CONDITION, (B) BECAUSE THE CLIMATE OF THE OVERSEAS STATION WOULD AFFECT ADVERSELY THE HEALTH OF THE DEPENDENT, AND (C) BECAUSE OF UNDESIRABLE LIVING CONDITIONS, OR THE HIGH COST OF LIVING. IF THE MEMBER ACTUALLY MAINTAINS A HOUSEHOLD IN THE UNITED STATES IN WHICH THE DEPENDENT RESIDES, WILL HE BE ENTITLED TO THE ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH DEPENDENT?

(3) WHERE A MEMBER IS ORDERED FOR DUTY TO A POST OR AREA WHERE CRITICAL HOUSING CONDITIONS EXIST, AND BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY OF SECURING HOUSING FOR HIMSELF AND DEPENDENTS, MAINTAINS A PLACE OF ABODE FOR SAID DEPENDENT AT OTHER THAN SUCH MEMBER'S POST OF DUTY, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SAID MEMBER BE ENTITLED TO INCREASED ALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF SAID DEPENDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 102 (G), AND IF SO, FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD?

(4) IN A CASE WHERE A DEPENDENT OF A MEMBER OF THE SERVICES CONCERNED DOES NOT NORMALLY RESIDE WITH SAID MEMBER, BUT SAID MEMBER MAINTAINS FOR HER, OR SHE MAINTAINS A PLACE OF ABODE SEPARATED FROM THE MEMBER FOR REASONS OF HEALTH, OR BECAUSE RESIDENCE IN THE HOUSEHOLD AT THE DUTY STATION OF THE MEMBER CONTRIBUTES TO A CONDITION OF INCOMPATIBILITY, OR FOR OTHER CAUSES, IS THE MEMBER IN QUESTION NEVERTHELESS ENTITLED TO INCREASED ALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF SAID DEPENDENT PARENT, IF SAID DEPENDENT IS OTHERWISE QUALIFIED UNDER SECTION 102 (G/?

(5) IN SITUATIONS WHERE NORMALLY THE DEPENDENT PARENT OF SAID MEMBER WOULD RESIDE WITH HIM IN HIS HOUSEHOLD AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION, BUT(A) THE DEPENDENT IS MENTALLY INCOMPETENT AND CONFINED IN AN INSTITUTION, (B) BECAUSE OF ADVANCED AGE RESIDES IN A HOME FOR THE AGED, OR (C) BECAUSE THE CLIMATE AT THE STATION AT WHICH THE MEMBER IS ON DUTY IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH OF THE PARENT SUCH DEPENDENT DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER, WOULD THE ADDITIONAL RENTAL ALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF SAID DEPENDENT BE PAYABLE TO SAID MEMBER, AND IF SO, FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD WOULD SAID INCREASED ALLOWANCE BE PAYABLE?

UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES OF DESIGNATED PAY GRADES ARE ENTITLED, UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS, TO A BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS AT A RATE WHICH IS DEPENDENT UPON THE MEMBER'S GRADE OR RANK AND WHETHER HE IS WITH OR WITHOUT DEPENDENTS. IT WILL BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT UNDER THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 102 (G), SUPRA, A FATHER OR MOTHER MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A DEPENDENT UNLESS THE PARENT, IN ADDITION TO BEING DEPENDENT ON THE MEMBER FOR OVER HALF OF HIS OR HER SUPPORT, ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SUCH MEMBER. ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD "HOUSEHOLD" APPEARING IN WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, SECOND EDITION, AND THE ONE GENERALLY INDICATIVE OF THE SENSE OF THAT WORD AS USED IN SECTION 102 (G) IS AS FOLLOWS:

THOSE WHO DWELL UNDER THE SAME ROOF AND COMPOSE A FAMILY; A DOMESTIC ESTABLISHMENT; FAMILY.

ALSO, SEE LUMBERMEN'S MUT. CASUALTY CO. V. PULSIFER, 41 F.1SUPP. 249, 251; ISLAND V. FIREMAN'S FUND INDEMNITY CO. ET AL., 172 P.2D 520, 525; KRANSKY V. GLEN ALDEN COAL CO., 45 A.2D 384, 385; VOL. 19, WORDS AND PHRASES, PERM. USED.' HOUSEHOLD.' IT APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF THE HEARINGS HELD BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 81ST CONGRESS, ON H.R. 2553 (WHICH AS REWRITTEN WAS INTRODUCED AS H.R. 5007, AND BECAME THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949), THAT IT WAS FULLY REALIZED THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "DEPENDENT," SUPRA, WOULD PRECLUDE PAYMENT OF INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES ON ACCOUNT OF DEPENDENT PARENTS IN ALL CASES WHERE THE PARENT DOES NOT ACTUALLY RESIDE IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD. THAT CONNECTION THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE SAID SUBCOMMITTEE (PAGES 1480-1489):

MR. JOHNSON. DID YOU DECIDE THE PROBLEM OF THE DEFINITION?

MR. KILDAY. I THINK THE GENERAL HAS SOME SUGGESTIONS THERE.

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. THIS PROBLEM HAS TROUBLED US FOR SOME TIME. IT IS A DIFFICULT PROBLEM. I THINK IT IS DESIRABLE THAT WE ANALYZE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH WE ARE DEFINING A DEPENDENT. ACTUALLY, IT IS NOT A PROPOSITION OF INCREASING PAY, BECAUSE OF DEPENDENTS, BECAUSE LATER ON IN THE BILL WE DO AWAY WITH THE PAY ALLOWANCES FOR ENLISTED MEN.

TO SAVE MONEY AND TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO ADMINISTER OUR SERVICE, WE HAVE FOR GENERATIONS DECIDED THAT AN OFFICER OR AN ENLISTED MAN OF CERTAIN GRADE IS ENTITLED TO A HOUSE ADEQUATE TO HIS RANK AND THE SIZE OF HIS FAMILY. THAT IS ON A STATION OR POST, WE GIVE A BACHELOR OFFICER ONE OR TWO ROOMS, AND AN OFFICER OF THE SAME GRADE WHO HAS A WIFE AND CHILD WE GIVE A HOUSE.

THEREFORE, WHEN THEY ARE NOT GIVEN QUARTERS, WE GIVE A BACHELOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY AND A MARRIED MAN A CERTAIN AMOUNT MORE SO HE CAN RENT A BIGGER HOUSE. I, THEREFORE, SUGGEST THIS AS A POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM. I WILL READ IT, AS IT IS A REPETITION OF WHAT I HAD READ BEFORE:

THE TERM "DEPENDENT" SHALL INCLUDE AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL PLACES THE LAWFUL WIFE AND UNMARRIED LEGITIMATE CHILDREN, UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE, OF ANY MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES. IT SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE FATHER OR MOTHER OR UNMARRIED LEGITIMATE CHILDREN OVER 21 YEARS OF AGE OF SUCH MEMBER, PROVIDED HE OR SHE IS IN FACT DEPENDENT ON SUCH MEMBER FOR OVER HALF OF HIS OR HER SUPPORT.

AND THIS IS WHERE I BELIEVE SHOULD BE INCLUDED,"AND ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SUCH MEMBER EXCEPT FOR PERIODS OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE.' THAT IS, WE SHOULD PLACE THE QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY OF A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT A WIFE NOR A CHILD ON WHETHER HE IS AN ACTUAL BONA FIDE MEMBER OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

THAT WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER WHO DRAW SUCH ALLOWANCES BY A GREAT DEAL. IT WOULD ACTUALLY, IN MY OPINION, SAVE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF THE MONEY WE ARE APPARENTLY GOING TO BE FACED WITH SAVING.

MR. CLEMENTE. MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. KILDAY. MR. CLEMENTE.

MR. CLEMENTE. GENERAL, WE HAVE THE CASE OF A PATIENT RESIDING IN AN ASYLUM. HE IS NOT ACTUALLY RESIDING IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEARS THE EXPENSE OF THE PATIENT AT THE ASYLUM.

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. THIS IS NOT ON THE NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS, THIS IS A METHOD OF FURNISHING MEMBERS OF THE SERVICE WITH ADEQUATE QUARTERS.

MR. CLEMENTE. IF THEY DON-T LIVE ON THE POST.

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. IF THEY DON-T LIVE ON THE POST. A MAN WHO IS MARRIED GETS $15 A MONTH MORE THAN AN UNMARRIED MAN, WHEREAS THE UNMARRIED MAN CAN GO TO THE CLUB OR RENT A SMALL APARTMENT. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL IN PAY BETWEEN A MARRIED MAN AND UNMARRIED MAN OR BETWEEN A MAN WITH DEPENDENTS AND WITHOUT DEPENDENTS, IS NOT ON THE BASIS OF DEPENDENCY BUT ON THE BASIS OF FURNISHING THE MAN WITH ADEQUATE SHELTER. (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. HERE IS THE WAY THE THING IS ADMINISTERED. A PERSON WHO GOES TO A POST WHERE THERE ARE NO QUARTERS AVAILABLE, HE CAN POSSIBLY GET A ROOM THAT IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR HIS FAMILY. THEREFORE, IF HIS FAMILY IS NOT WITH HIM, HE DRAWS A FULL COMMUTATION FOR AN OFFICER WITH DEPENDENTS. BUT AS WE PROPOSE IT, WE PROPOSE THAT WIVES AND CHILDREN BE COUNTED REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY ARE, BUT THAT OTHER DEPENDENTS NOT BE COUNTED UNLESS THEY ARE BONA FIDE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

MR. JOHNSON. MR. CHAIRMAN.

MR. KILDAY. MR. JOHNSON.

MR. JOHNSON. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ONE QUESTION ABOUT THIS SUGGESTED PHRASING YOU HAD THERE ABOUT RESIDING WITH THE OFFICERS. THE ONLY WAY I CAN ASK IT IS TO ILLUSTRATE TWO CASES THAT I KNOW OF.

ONE OFFICER THAT I KNEW HAD A MOTHER WHO BECAME INSANE AND IT WAS NECESSARY TO PUT HER IN AN ASYLUM IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE A PROVISION UNDER THE LAW THAT IF YOU PLACE A PERSON IN ONE OF THOSE INSTITUTIONS AND YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PAY, YOU HAVE TO PAY SO MUCH A MONTH TO TAKE CARE OF THAT PERSON.

IN MY MIND THAT OFFICER OUGHT TO BE ENTITLED TO THAT COMPENSATION.

THE OTHER ILLUSTRATION IS THIS: THERE WAS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL OUT IN SAN FRANCISCO WHO WAS AN ENGINEER. THIS MAN WAS A BACHELOR AND HE HAD A MOTHER WHO HAD ARTHRITIS--- A VERY BAD CASE. IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO LIVE THERE ALL THE TIME. HE COULD NOT LIVE WITH HER AND BE THERE ALL THE TIME SO HE PUT HER IN A PLACE CLOSE TO WHERE HE WAS. HE WAS IN A HOTEL. IN THAT KIND OF CASE THAT OFFICER SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THAT COMPENSATION. AND YET I THINK HE TOOK THE CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SOME RULING OF YOUR DEPARTMENT AND THEY DENIED HIM ANY COMPENSATION ON THAT.

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. MR. JOHNSON, IT DEPENDS ON THE PHILOSOPHY. WHAT IS THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND A SINGLE MAN WITH DEPENDENTS AND WITHOUT DEPENDENTS?

MR. JOHNSON. UNDER YOUR PROVISION YOU GOT TO LIVE UNDER THE SAME ROOF IN THE SAME HOUSE. * * * (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

MR. VINSON. UNDER THE PROPOSAL I MADE, YOU WOULD DROP MORE.

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. NO. THE PROPOSAL YOU MADE, MR. VINSON, WOULD DROP A FEW. WE HAVE 75,000--- THIS IS THE ARMY ALONE--- WE HAVE 74,000 SINGLE ENLISTED MEN TODAY WHO ARE CLAIMING DEPENDENTS. THERE ARE 35,000 SINGLE MEN WHO ARE CLAIMING DEPENDENTS IN THE AIR FORCE.

NOW, UNDER THIS BILL AS PROPOSED, ALL OF THE MEN WHO ARE ABOVE THE 4TH GRADE AND WHO LIVE IN BARRACKS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DRAW $45 FOR A DEPENDENT MOTHER.

WE HAVE IN THE ARMY 2,000 SINGLE OFFICERS WHO ARE CLAIMING DEPENDENTS AND THERE ARE 1,300 IN THE AIR FORCE WHO ARE CLAIMING DEPENDENTS.

WITH RESPECT TO MR. JOHNSON'S POINT, HERE IS A SINGLE MAN WHOSE MOTHER WAS IN AN INSTITUTION. SUPPOSING INSTEAD OF THAT MAN BEING A SINGLE MAN HE HAD BEEN A MARRIED MAN AND HIS MOTHER WAS IN THE INSTITUTION AND THIS MARRIED MAN OR SINGLE MAN WAS NOT STATIONED ON A POST, BUT IN A CITY. WHY SHOULD WE PAY THE SINGLE MAN WHOSE MOTHER WAS IN THE ASYLUM ANY MORE THAN THE MARRIED MAN WHOSE MOTHER WAS IN THE ASYLUM?

THIS MONEY IS NOT BEING PAID FOR SUCH DIFFERENTIATION. THIS MONEY IS BEING PAID FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY, TO GIVE A MAN ADEQUATE QUARTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS RATING AND THE SIZE OF HIS FAMILY. (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

MR. BATES. THAT MONEY IS FOR QUARTERS PURPOSES ONLY?

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. YES.

GENERAL DAHLQUIST. THERE ARE 2,000 SINGLE ARMY OFFICERS AND 1,300 AIR FORCE OFFICERS--- ALSO SINGLE OFFICERS--- CLAIMING DEPENDENTS.

UNDER THE PRESENT LAW, THIS WOULD INDICATE THEY ARE CLAIMING AS DEPENDENTS EITHER OR BOTH OF THEIR PARENTS. BASED ON SUCH CLAIM, THEY ARE ABLE TO DRAW RENTAL ALLOWANCE FOR OFFICER WITH DEPENDENTS, WHILE IN MOST CASES LIVING IN BACHELOR QUARTERS. OTHER SINGLE OFFICERS LIVING IN SINGLE QUARTERS DO NOT DRAW RENTAL ALLOWANCE. ASSUMING THAT THE AVERAGE QUARTERS ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH PERSONNEL IS $90 PER MONTH OR $1,080 PER YEAR, WE FIND THE ANNUAL COST IN THE BUDGET FOR SUCH PERSONNEL TO BE $3,564,000. ALSO, SEE HOUSE REPORT NO. 779 (PAGES 11 AND 28) AND SENATE REPORT NO. 733 (PAGE 15), ON H.R. 5007, WHICH BECAME THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949. VIEW OF THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE WORD "HOUSEHOLD" AND THE EXPRESS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT A PARENT, IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED A DEPENDENT OF A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, MUST ACTUALLY RESIDE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SUCH MEMBER (IN ADDITION TO BEING FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT UPON SUCH MEMBER FOR OVER HALF OF HIS OR HER SUPPORT), IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT A PARENT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED A "DEPENDENT" FOR QUARTERS ALLOWANCE PURPOSES, EVEN THOUGH FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT UPON SUCH MEMBER, UNLESS SHE OR HE ACTUALLY RESIDES WITH THE MEMBER IN THE HOUSE OR APARTMENT WHICH HE MAINTAINS FOR HIMSELF AND FOR THOSE ACTUALLY LIVING WITH HIM. THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SUCH PROVISION CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SAID PROVISION WAS EXPRESSLY DESIGNED TO PRECLUDE THE PAYMENT OF INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT IN CASES WHERE THE MEMBER PROCURES PRIVATE QUARTERS AT HIS OWN EXPENSE BUT HIS PARENT DOES NOT ACTUALLY RESIDE WITH HIM IN SUCH QUARTERS AS A MEMBER OF HIS HOUSEHOLD; AND, PARTICULARLY, TO PRECLUDE PAYMENT OF INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT IN CASES WHERE THE MEMBER IS FURNISHED QUARTERS FOR HIMSELF BUT NOT FOR HIS PARENT AT HIS PERMANENT POST OR STATION.

THE ALLOWANCE IS NOT PAYABLE PRIMARILY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEPENDENCY OF THE PARENT, BUT THE STATUTORY OBJECT APPARENTLY IS ONLY TO PROVIDE A MEMBER WITH AN ALLOWANCE WHERE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN QUARTERS FOR HIMSELF AND HIS DEPENDENT PARENT AT, OR CONVENIENT TO, HIS PERMANENT STATION IN CASES WHERE THE GOVERNMENT IS UNABLE TO FURNISH HIM WITH FAMILY QUARTERS AT SUCH STATION. IF THE PARENT IS NOT AT THE MEMBER'S PERMANENT STATION THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION FOR HIM TO DEMAND PUBLIC FAMILY QUARTERS AT SUCH STATION FOR HIMSELF AND PARENT AND, HENCE, NO OCCASION FOR AN ALLOWANCE TO OBTAIN QUARTERS NEARBY FOR HIMSELF AND PARENT IN LIEU OF PUBLIC FAMILY QUARTERS THEREAT. TO HOLD OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO PLACE THE ALLOWANCE PRIMARILY ON THE BASIS OF DEPENDENCY AND NOT ON ANY NEED FOR FAMILY QUARTERS AT THE MEMBER'S PERMANENT STATION, WHICH THE GOVERNMENT NORMALLY PROVIDES. THE LAW MAKES NO EXCEPTION IN CASES WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE OR IMPRACTICABLE FOR THE PARENT TO RESIDE IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD, IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCATION, BECAUSE OF AGE, PHYSICAL CONDITION, CLIMATE, LIVING CONDITIONS, INCOMPATIBILITY, HIGH COST OF LIVING, OR DIFFICULTY IN SECURING HOUSING ACCOMMODATIONS. IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT TO PERMIT EXCEPTIONS TO BE MADE IN SUCH CASES WOULD BE VIRTUALLY TO DISREGARD THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPRESS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF ACTUAL RESIDENCE IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD. IT MUST BE CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, THAT A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO AN INCREASED BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT UNDER THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN ANY OF THE FIRST FIVE QUESTIONS, IT BEING ASSUMED THAT THE FIRST THREE QUESTIONS RELATE TO CASES INVOLVING ORDERS FOR PERMANENT CHANGES OF STATION. RESPECTING THE FIRST QUESTION, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT WHILE SECTION 302 (D) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT NO MEMBER ASSIGNED TO GOVERNMENT QUARTERS SHALL BE DENIED HIS BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS IF, BY REASON OF ORDERS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY, HIS DEPENDENTS ARE PREVENTED FROM OCCUPYING SUCH QUARTERS, A PARENT DOES NOT COME WITHIN SUCH PROVISION BECAUSE, UNDER SECTION 102 (G), A PARENT IS NOT A DEPENDENT FOR QUARTERS ALLOWANCE PURPOSES UNLESS HE OR SHE ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF THE MEMBER.

THE SIXTH AND SEVENTH QUESTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

(6) IN CASES WHERE THE DEPENDENT NORMALLY RESIDES WITH THE MEMBER IN HIS HOUSEHOLD AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION, BUT IS HOSPITALIZED FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF NOT TO EXCEED 6 MONTHS, WOULD THE INCREASED ALLOWANCES BE PAYABLE TO SAID MEMBER DURING SUCH TEMPORARY PERIOD, AND IF SO, FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD WOULD SAID INCREASED ALLOWANCES BE PAYABLE TO THE MEMBER?

(7) IN A CASE WHERE A DEPENDENT NORMALLY WOULD RESIDE WITH THE MEMBER IN HIS HOUSEHOLD AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION, BUT FOR REASONS OF HEALTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO SPEND, FOR INSTANCE, A PORTION OF A YEAR IN A MORE SALUBRIOUS CLIMATE TO ESCAPE THE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF THE CLIMATE AT THE DUTY STATION OF THE MEMBER, WILL SUCH TEMPORARY RESIDENCE OF NOT TO EXCEED 6 MONTHS SEPARATE AND APART FROM SAID MEMBER DEPRIVE SAID MEMBER OF INCREASED ALLOWANCES FOR QUARTERS, AND IF NOT, FOR HOW LONG A PERIOD WILL SUCH RESIDENCE BE PERMITTED?

IT WILL BE NOTED FROM THE ABOVE-QUOTED EXCERPTS FROM THE HEARINGS ON H.R. 2553 THAT IT WAS AT FIRST PROPOSED THAT THE DEFINITION OF "DEPENDENT" REQUIRES THAT THE PARENT ACTUALLY RESIDE IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD "EXCEPT FOR PERIODS OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE.' WHILE THE STATUTE, AS FINALLY ENACTED, DOES NOT CONTAIN THE SAID EXCEPTION IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT IN MANY SITUATIONS IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO HOLD THAT THE PARENT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ACTUAL RESIDENT IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD DURING PERIODS OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE THEREFROM OCCASIONED BY HOSPITALIZATION, TREATMENT OR CARE IN AN INSTITUTION, SHORT VISITS WITH FRIENDS OR RELATIVES, ETC. HENCE, THE OMISSION OF THE SAID EXCEPTION APPARENTLY NEED NOT BE VIEWED AS ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDING THE PAYMENT OF INCREASED QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT FOR PERIODS WHEN THE PARENT IS TEMPORARILY ABSENT FROM THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD, PROVIDED (1) THE PARENT ACTUALLY WAS PRESENT AND LIVING IN THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD AT HIS PERMANENT STATION UP TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE, (2) THE MEMBER CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN A HOUSEHOLD AT HIS PERMANENT STATION FOR HIMSELF AND HIS PARENT DURING SUCH ABSENCE, AND (3) THE PARENT ACTUALLY RETURNS TO THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD AND RESUMES HIS OR HER PLACE THEREIN WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE. WHILE IT IS DIFFICULT TO FIX ANY PARTICULAR PERIOD WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED A MAXIMUM "REASONABLE TIME" FOR SUCH A TEMPORARY ABSENCE, IT SEEMS OBVIOUS THAT THE LONGER OR THE MORE THE PARENT IS ABSENT FROM THE HOUSEHOLD THE GREATER THE DOUBT THAT HE OR SHE "ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED AND OF THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS BEARING ON THE MATTER, IT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED THAT THIS OFFICE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO OBJECT TO OTHERWISE PROPER PAYMENTS OF QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT PARENT EVEN THOUGH THE PARENT MAY HAVE BEEN TEMPORARILY ABSENT FROM THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD, PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH ALLOWANCE IS PAID FOR ANY PERIOD WHEN THE PARENT IS ABSENT FROM THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PARENT IS RETURNED TO SUCH HOUSEHOLD AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PARENT'S ABSENCE FROM THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD DOES NOT EXCEED THREE MONTHS AT ANY ONE TIME OR AN AGGREGATE OF NINETY-ONE DAYS IN ANY SIX-MONTH PERIOD. THE MATTER WOULD APPEAR TO ADMIT OF TOO MUCH DOUBT FOR THIS OFFICE TO APPROVE PAYMENTS FOR ANY PART OF LONGER PERIODS OF ABSENCE, EITHER AT ONE TIME OR INTERMITTENTLY, PARTICULARLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IN SUCH CASES THE PARENT WOULD BE LIVING AWAY FROM THE MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD THE GREATER PART OF THE TIME OVER SUCH A SIX-MONTH PERIOD AND, UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, COULD ONLY DUBIOUSLY BE REGARDED AS ACTUALLY RESIDING IN THE HOUSEHOLD FOR THE WHOLE PERIOD.

THE EIGHTH QUESTION IS AS FOLLOWS:

(8) IF UNDER SECTION 102 (G) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949 A DEPENDENT PARENT OF A MEMBER OF THE SERVICE CONCERNED DOES NOT ACTUALLY RESIDE IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER, AND SAID MEMBER IS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF ALLOWANCES FOR SAID DEPENDENT PARENT UNDER SAID SECTION, THUS REDUCING THE TOTAL COMPENSATION OF SAID MEMBER TO AN AMOUNT LESS UNDER THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949 THAN HE WOULD RECEIVE UNDER THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, MAY SAID MEMBER UNDER THE SAVINGS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 515 OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949 CONTINUE TO DRAW INCREASED ALLOWANCES UNDER THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, AS AMENDED, ON ACCOUNT OF SAID PARENT DEPENDENT UPON SAID MEMBER FOR HIS OR HER CHIEF SUPPORT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER SAID DEPENDENT PARENT ACTUALLY RESIDES IN THE HOUSEHOLD OF SAID MEMBER?

A SIMILAR QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AT SOME LENGTH IN DECISION OF NOVEMBER 30, 1949, B-90270, 29 COMP. GEN. 241, WHERE IT WAS CONCLUDED, IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION CONSIDERED THEREIN, THAT MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHO WERE ENTITLED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1949, TO RECEIVE INCREASED ALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF DEPENDENT PARENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IN EFFECT ON THAT DATE, THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 359, ARE ENTITLED, UNDER THE SAVINGS PROVISIONS IN SECTIONS 515 (A) AND 520 OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 831, 834, IF OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO SAVED PAY AND ALLOWANCES, TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE SUCH INCREASED ALLOWANCES AN ACCOUNT OF DEPENDENT PARENTS UNTIL JULY 1, 1952, OR, AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE LATTER ACT, SO LONG AS THE PARENTS REMAIN DEPENDENT ON THEM FOR CHIEF SUPPORT AND SUCH MEMBERS OTHERWISE CONTINUE, WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, TO QUALIFY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRIOR STATUTE FOR SUCH ALLOWANCES, TOGETHER WITH OTHER SAVED PAY AND ALLOWANCES, EVEN THOUGH THE PARENTS DO NOT ACTUALLY RESIDE IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD. ON THAT BASIS, THE PRESENT QUESTION IS LIKEWISE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.