B-206541, SEP 21, 1982

B-206541, SEP 21, 1982

DIGEST: SERVICE MEMBER WHO MOVED HIS DEPENDENTS AND RELOCATED HIS HOUSEHOLD FOR PERSONAL REASONS IN NOVEMBER 1976 TO A LOCATION 10 MILES FROM HIS FORMER RESIDENCE MAY NOT BE PAID A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE, SINCE HIS MOVE WAS NOT NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AN ORDERED CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION.

STAFF SERGEANT DENNIS R. MONGEON, USAF:

STAFF SERGEANT DENNIS R. MONGEON, USAF, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR CLAIMS GROUP'S NOVEMBER 18, 1981 DENIAL OF HIS CLAIM FOR A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED SINCE HIS 10-MILE MOVE WAS FOR REASONS OF PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND WAS NOT NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AN ORDERED CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION. THE DENIAL IS SUSTAINED.

ON AUGUST 18, 1975, SERGEANT MONGEON WAS NOTIFIED OF HIS PERMANENT CHANGE -OF-STATION (PCS) ASSIGNMENT FROM GRIFFISS AIR FORCE BASE (AFB), NEW YORK, TO OSAN AIR BASE, KOREA, WITH THE GUARANTEED FOLLOW ON PCS ASSIGNMENT TO THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (RAF) INSTALLATION AT ALCONBURY, ENGLAND. SEPTEMBER 13, 1975, PRIOR TO HIS DEPARTURE FOR KOREA, SERGEANT MONGEON'S DEPENDENTS TRAVELED FROM GRIFFISS AFB TO MONTREAL, CANADA, AND THEN FLEW TO LONDON, ENGLAND, AT PERSONAL EXPENSE. THEREAFTER, THEY LIVED IN HUNTINGTON, ENGLAND, AT THE HOME OF HIS WIFE'S PARENTS LOCATED NEAR RAF ALCONBURY. SERGEANT MONGEON ARRIVED IN ENGLAND IN SEPTEMBER 1976 AND LIVED WITH HIS FAMILY IN HUNTINGTON UNTIL NOVEMBER 1976, WHEN HE MOVED HIS DEPENDENTS AND HOUSEHOLD TO SAWTRY, A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10 MILES.

SERGEANT MONGEON'S CLAIM FOR TRANSOCEANIC DEPENDENT TRAVEL PERFORMED IN 1975 WAS ORIGINALLY DENIED ON GROUNDS THAT HIS DEPENDENTS TRAVELED AT PERSONAL EXPENSE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS OR RECEIPT OF OFFICIAL NOTICE THAT THE ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED. HE WAS PAID $19.11 FOR DEPENDENT TRAVEL FROM GRIFFISS AFB TO MONTREAL AND $146.40 FOR A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. THEREAFTER, IN 1980 THE AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS CHANGED HIS RECORDS TO SHOW THAT PCS ORDERS WERE ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY ON SEPTEMBER 12, 1975, AUTHORIZING THE TRAVEL OF HIS DEPENDENTS AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE FROM MONTREAL, CANADA, TO ENGLAND. BASED UPON THE CORRECTED RECORD, HE RECEIVED AN ADDITIONAL TRAVEL PAYMENT OF $317.99 FOR HIS DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL TO ENGLAND IN 1975.

SERGEANT MONGEON LATER CLAIMED, IN 1981, THAT HE SHOULD ALSO BE PAID A SECOND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE FOR HIS FAMILY'S 1976 MOVE FROM HUNTINGTON TO SAWTRY, ENGLAND. HE STATED THAT ALTHOUGH HE INITIALLY STAYED AT THE HOME OF HIS WIFE'S PARENTS IN HUNTINGTON, HE LATER BOUGHT A HOUSE IN SAWTRY WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT THAT BASE HOUSING AT RAF ALCONBURY WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR 2 YEARS. DENIAL OF THAT CLAIM WAS BASED UPON OUR DECISION B-170293, SEPTEMBER 9, 1970, WHEREIN WE HELD THAT A SERVICE MEMBER'S ENTITLEMENT TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS DEPENDENT UPON A CLEAR AND POSITIVE SHOWING THAT HIS CHANGE OF RESIDENCE WAS NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AN ORDERED CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION. HIS MOVE WAS INSTEAD DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR PERSONAL REASONS IN SEEKING LARGER QUARTERS.

IN HIS APPEAL, SERGEANT MONGEON NOTES THAT IN B-170293, SEPTEMBER 9, 1970, THE CLAIMANT HAD SIGNED A YEAR'S LEASE AND RELOCATED TO MORE SUITABLE QUARTERS WITHOUT EXPLANATION UPON EXPIRATION OF THE LEASE. SUGGESTS THAT HIS OWN SITUATION IS DISTINGUISHABLE SINCE HE HAD NO LEASE, HIS WIFE AND CHILD LIVED WITH RELATIVES IN HUNTINGTON AS A MATTER OF ECONOMIC NECESSITY, AND HIS DELAY IN RELOCATING AFTER ARRIVING FROM KOREA FROM SEPTEMBER UNTIL NOVEMBER 1976 WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE OF A HOME.

SECTION 407 OF TITLE 37, U.S.C. (1976), PROVIDES THAT UNDER REGULATIONS APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY CONCERNED, A MEMBER OF A UNIFORMED SERVICE WHOSE DEPENDENTS MAKE AN AUTHORIZED MOVE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION IS ENTITLED TO A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE. PARAGRAPH M9003 -1 (CH. 280, JUNE 1, 1976), VOLUME 1 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS (1 JTR), AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF THE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE WHENEVER DEPENDENTS RELOCATE THEIR HOUSEHOLD IN CONNECTION WITH A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, AND PARAGRAPH M9000 NOTES THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLOWANCE IS TO REIMBURSE A MEMBER FOR EXPENSES NECESSARILY INCURRED IN RELOCATING HIS HOUSEHOLD AS REQUIRED BY PCS ORDERS.

A SERVICE MEMBER IS NOT REQUIRED TO MOVE HIS DEPENDENTS EACH TIME HIS PERMANENT STATION IS CHANGED. FURTHER, A RIGHT TO A TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OCCUR IN ALL EVENTS ON THE BASIS THAT SOME TRAVEL IS PERFORMED. THAT RIGHT DOES NOT ARISE UNLESS THE TRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INCIDENT TO A CHANGE OF RESIDENCE AS THE RESULT OF AN ORDERED PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FOR THE MEMBER. SEE 33 COMP.GEN. 431 (1954) AND CASES THERE CITED, AND B-155539, JANUARY 7, 1965. THUS, IN 45 COMP.GEN. 589 (1966), WE STATED:

"*** WHILE DELAY IN RELOCATING A MEMBER'S HOUSEHOLD INCIDENT TO A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION DOES NOT OF ITSELF BAR PAYMENT FOR THE MOVE WHEN MADE, SUCH DELAY, WHEN COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE MOVE WAS MADE TO ANOTHER LOCATION WITHIN THE SAME AREA, IS FURTHER INDICATION THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN FOR PERSONAL REASONS AND NOT THE RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION. ***"

IN THE PRESENT CASE, SERGEANT MONGEON WAS PAID A DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IN 1975 AFTER HIS DEPENDENTS ESTABLISHED A RESIDENCE IN HUNTINGTON, ENGLAND, BASED UPON HIS PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM GRIFFISS AFB TO KOREA. AFTER HE JOINED THEM IN ENGLAND THE FOLLOWING YEAR, HE STAYED AT THAT RESIDENCE IN HUNTINGTON FOR APPROXIMATELY 2 MONTHS, AND THEN MOVED TO NEARBY SAWTRY BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE HUNTINGTON RESIDENCE WAS TOO SMALL.

SERGEANT MONGEON'S DELAYED RELOCATION TO MORE DESIRABLE QUARTERS IN THE SAME AREA THUS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE FOR PERSONAL REASONS, AND WAS APPARENTLY NOT DIRECTLY NECESSARY AS THE RESULT OF THE PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM KOREA TO ENGLAND. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, PAYMENT OF A SECOND DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ALTHOUGH THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE DIFFER SOMEWHAT FROM THOSE IN B-170293, SEPTEMBER 9, 1970, THE RELOCATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD IN THAT CASE AS WELL AS IN SERGEANT MONGEON'S WAS NOT NECESSARY AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AN ORDERED CHANGE OF PERMANENT STATION, SO THAT THE SAME PRINCIPLE APPLIES IN BOTH CASES.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIMS GROUP SETTLEMENT IS SUSTAINED.