Entitlement to Family Separation Allowances

An Army officer appealed the Claims Division denial of his claim for family separation allowances (FSA). The officer received orders transferring him to Germany which established his reporting date and noted that he had been accorded a dependent travel code. This meant that his dependent was entitled to travel with him only after he submitted an application for such travel to his installation commander and approval was obtained from the overseas commander. The officer traveled to Germany alone. Because of the long waiting period involved in securing base housing, he was able to rent off-post housing about 2 months after his arrival in Germany. Subsequent to the officer's arrival in Germany, his wife, also an Army officer, received orders transferring her to a new duty station in the same general area as her husband. Her orders stated that concurrent travel was approved for their dependent child. The orders also contained specific directives relating to quarters and family housing items in short supply. At some point after the time the officer arrived in Germany, his wife executed a letter of authorization stating that the child should be listed as her husband's dependent as of the date he arrived in Germany. However, the child traveled to Germany under her mother's orders. In claiming entitlement to FSA, the officer asserted that as of the date his child allegedly became his dependent, she was not authorized to follow him to Germany due to a lack of adequate quarters and that officials at his previous duty station had told him that concurrent travel was not being authorized to personnel assigned to his new duty station in Germany. While not made explicit in legislation or in Army regulations, there is an implied duty upon a Service member to pursue authorization of concurrent travel of dependents through the proper procedures. The record indicated that the officer did not pursue authorization for the concurrent travel of his child. GAO held that it was incumbent upon him at the time his orders were issued to clarify the dependency status of his child and to request her concurrent transportation if he wished to take her to Germany. GAO did not believe that there was the enforced separation of the child from her father necessary for entitlement to FSA. Therefore, the disallowance of the claim was sustained.