Entitlement to Transportation for Dependents

The issue presented was whether a member of the Army Reserve was entitled to transportation expenses for her dependents at Government expense incident to being ordered to active duty in the same general area where she received the active duty orders. The member, living in Hawaii, was ordered to active duty in Hawaii with temporary duty en route in Texas. The dependents traveled at personal expense to California, the member's home of record, and remained there while the member performed temporary duty in Texas. The member's travel orders were amended to authorize concurrent travel of the dependents from California back to Hawaii, whereupon the member and her dependents returned to the same Government quarters which they occupied when the member received her active duty orders. Thus, it appeared that the dependents travel was performed for personal convenience. Regulations concerning the entitlement to transportation expenses for dependents when a member is ordered to active duty have been interpreted as entitling dependents to transportation at Government expense from the place from which ordered to active duty or from the home of record. Since the dependents were located in Hawaii, where the orders to active duty were received, the member was only entitled to be reimbursed for their transportation from that point to her first permanent duty station. Although the member's travel orders were amended to allow for concurrent travel of her dependents, these travel orders did not give rise to any entitlement since they were contrary to law and regulation. Accordingly, the member was not entitled to transportation for her dependents at Government expense in those circumstances.