GENERAL COUNSEL'S OPINION NUMBER 55-26, DATED 20 JULY 1955

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070056-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 15, 2001
• Sequence Number: 56
• Publication Date: July 20, 1955
• Content Type: MISC

Approved For Release 2002/05/06 : CIA 7fl5WftQ180070056-3
GENERAL COUNSEL`S OPINION NUMBER 55-26, DATED 20 JULY 1955
Although members of an employee's household. ordinarily are
those dependent upon and residing with the employee, tem-
porary absence from home does not necessarily have the
effect of removing a person from the category of "member
of the employee's household.
TO THE CHIEF, FE
1. A dispatch, dated 23 November 1951-, from Chief, Base,
to Chief, FE, was brought to the attention of this Office by H., who
provided additional factual information, partially at variance with that
set forth in the dispatch.
2. As detailed by H.., the facts are these. H. is divorced from
his wife. The decree requires that he contribute to his daughter's sup-
port; her custody is vested in his ex-wife, with the provision that he
is to have custody for a minimum of two months each year, the timing and
duration of such custody to be determined by the mother. When H. was
ordered PCS from Washington to n May, 1953, his former wife and,
daughter were in Kansas City, a the mother had agreed to relinquish
custody of the daughter so that she might accompany H., to remain with 25X1A6a
him for an unspecified period. Consequently, H. requested. and. was
issued travel orders authorizing his daughter's transportation from
Kansas City to When he was ready to pick up his daughter at Kansas
City, he found I_hEt his former wife had. changed her mind and refused to 25X1A6a
relinquish custody, so he proceeded to =lone. Subsequently the
mother and daughter went to G--, on private business. The mother then
agreed. to release the daughter to H.'s custody and. permitted her to
proceed to for an indefinite stay. H. claims reimbursement for his
daughter's -way passage from G-- ton September, 1953. About 25X1A
one month after the daughter reached a mother again changed her 25X1A
mind. and. reclaimed custody. H. returned the girl to G-- at his per- 25X1A6a
sonal expense. At the time of travel, she was nine years old..
3. PL 110, section 5(a)(1)(b) authorizes payment of the travel
expenses of "members of the family" of any Aaencv employee when'Dro-
. . . Had s daughter traveled with him ram as on en ere
would have been no question of his entitlement to reimbursement.
4. Had she traveled. from Kansas City, as was originally planned.,
the entitlement would be equally valid. 25 Comp. Gen. 325, 4 October
195, states: "Members of an employee's household ordinarily are those
dependent upon and residing with the employee. Temporary absence from
Approved For Release 2002/05/06 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070056-3
 Approved For Fease 2002/05/06: CIA-RDP78-058440100070056-3
Page 2 -- General Counsel's Opinion No. 55-26
home for the purpose of attending school, visiting, or like temporary
purposes -- at the time of the transfer of the employee -- does not
have the effect of removing such individuals from consideration as
members of the employee's household." There is room for reasonable
difference of opinion in making the administrative determination as
to whether a given absence is "temporary" but, in the instant case,
it is clear that the daughter was a member of H.'s household at any
time that the mother was willing to relinquish custody and he was
willing to accept it, that the initial step in this sequence of events
was outside of his control, and that during the period involved he
intended his daughter to be a member of his household subject only
"When an employee acquires additional dependents (through
birth, marriage, legal adoption, or changes in dependency) sub-
sequent to the issuance of a travel authorization but before
the expiration of the time limitation, travel expenses and.
per diem for such additional dependents shall be allowable
under the travel authorization in the absence of any spe-
cifically stated limitation." (Emphasis supplied)
5. We perceive no difference in the situation as it actually
developed, where the mother relinquished . custody while in G-- and
the child was brought from G-- t by the employee. It was
throughout the intent of H. to a custody of his daughter and
to consider her as a member of his household whenever the mother
relinquished custody which, while in G--, she finally did. The
e e change in dependency was effected, and section 7(a) of
I I is applicable.
6. Although the travel performed was between G-- and=and,
th avel order authorized travel of the daughter from Kansas City
to such variation is permissible underl
"I rary Charges", which permits variation in itinerary wrina
amendment of the travel order provided only that the actual cost
claimed shall not exceed the constructive cost authorized.
7. That the daughter remained io only a month and was then
returned to the mother in G--, at no expense to the Government, is
irrelevant. It was H.'s stated intention throughout to keep the
child in his household so long as he should remain The
mother's determination that she desired to reassert er r ghts to
custody was a matter as much out of H.'s control as though, for
example, the child had become ill and reau~special medical
service which could not be obtained i
prove or elease 2002/05/06 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070056-3
 Approved For Release 2002?I\ 0 [0E7NTI/ 0100070056-3
IMW
SE
Page 3 -- General Counsel's Opinion No. 55-26
8. It is the opinion of this Office that if the claim is otherwise
in order, and if the proper administrative officials are satisfied of
the accuracy of the facts as stated by H., there is no legal objection
to its payment.
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
.SBCR~
CON ~l ENTIAU
Approved For Release 2002/05/06 : CIA-RDP78-05844A000100070056-3