B-101893, APRIL 11, 1951, 30 COMP. GEN. 397

B-101893, APRIL 11, 1951, 30 COMP. GEN. 397

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS SECTION 12 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942 AND REGULATIONS ISSUED PURSUANT THERETO, AS WELL AS SECTION 102 (G) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, CONTEMPLATE THAT TRANSPORTATION SHALL BE FURNISHED TO AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT PARENT OF AN OFFICER ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT TRAVEL IS PERFORMED TO THE OFFICER'S NEW PERMANENT STATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDING THERE AS A MEMBER OF HIS SON'S HOUSEHOLD, SO THAT WHERE A DEPENDENT FATHER DOES NOT TRAVEL TO THE OFFICER'S NEW STATION, BUT GOES INSTEAD TO ANOTHER LOCATION, THE OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRAVEL SO PERFORMED.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO LT. COL. C. L. YOUNG, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, APRIL 11, 1951:

BY THE FIRST ENDORSEMENT OF MARCH 6, 1951, THE CHIEF OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, REFERRED YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 15, 1950, TO THIS OFFICE FOR ADVANCE DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHER, SUBMITTED THEREWITH, COVERING REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION AT THE RATE OF 4 CENTS PER MILE, FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED BY THE FATHER OF COLONEL DANIEL W. HICKEY, JR., GSC, FROM FORT BLISS, TEXAS, TO HYATTSVILLE, MARYLAND.

BY ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 1949, ISSUED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, AS AMENDED BY ORDERS OF JANUARY 16, 1950, FEBRUARY 10, 1950, AND MARCH 1, 1950, THE OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION FROM FORT BLISS, TEXAS, TO KARACHI, PAKISTAN, VIA NEW YORK, NEW YORK, WITH TEMPORARY DUTY EN ROUTE AT WASHINGTON, D.C., AND CAMP HOLABIRD, MARYLAND, COMMENCING NOT LATER THAN NOVEMBER 4, 1949. INFORMATION ATTACHED TO SUCH VOUCHER WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFICER'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SUPPORT OF HIS FATHER DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 1931 TO OCTOBER 1, 1949, INDICATES THAT WHILE STATIONED AT FORT BLISS THE OFFICER'S FATHER WAS HIS DEPENDENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, AND IT IS STATED THAT THE FATHER HAD LIVED WITH THE OFFICER AS A MEMBER OF HIS HOUSEHOLD FOR A PERIOD OF 18 YEARS. WHILE IT APPEARS THAT HIS WIFE ACCOMPANIED HIM TO HIS NEW STATION IN KARACHI, HE STATES THAT HIS FATHER PROCEEDED TO THE HOME OF ANOTHER SON IN HYATTSVILLE, WHERE HE THEN CEASED TO BE A PERSONAL EXPENSE, DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 24 TO OCTOBER 24, 1949.

SECTION 12 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 364, PROVIDES THAT THE DEPENDENTS OF ANY OFFICER ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION SHALL BE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION "TO HIS NEW STATION" AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. PARAGRAPH 146B (1) SPECIAL REGULATIONS 35-4805-1, PROVIDES THAT IN CASES OF CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES OF TRANSPORTATION OF A DEPENDENT FATHER OR MOTHER, A CERTIFICATE IN THE FORM SET FORTH THEREIN MUST BE FURNISHED BY THE CLAIMANT. IT IS REQUIRED THAT SUCH CERTIFICATE INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT THE PARENT "WILL CONTINUE TO RESIDE WITH ME AS A MEMBER OF MY HOUSEHOLD AT MY NEW STATION.' SEE ALSO SECTION 102 (G) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 804, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1949, WHICH DEFINES THE TERM ,DEPENDENT" AS INCLUDING THE FATHER OR MOTHER OF A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES, IF 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 FOREGOING PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS APPEAR TO CONTEMPLATE THE FURNISHING OF TRANSPORTATION TO AN OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE DEPENDENT PARENT OF AN OFFICER ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT TRAVEL IS PERFORMED TO THE OFFICER'S NEW PERMANENT STATION OR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDING THERE AS A MEMBER OF HIS SON'S HOUSEHOLD. WHILE IT APPEARS THAT COLONEL HICKEY'S FATHER WAS HIS DEPENDENT WHILE HE WAS STATIONED AT FORT BLISS, SINCE THE FATHER DID NOT TRAVEL TO THE OFFICER'S NEW STATION, GOING INSTEAD TO ANOTHER LOCATION TO LIVE WITH ANOTHER SON AS A MEMBER OF HIS HOUSEHOLD AND AS HIS DEPENDENT, IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT THE OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED UNDER THE ABOVE-CITED PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS TO REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRAVEL SO PERFORMED.

ACCORDINGLY, PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETAINED IN THIS OFFICE, IS NOT AUTHORIZED.