Stephen P. Atkinson-Relocation Expenses-Household

B-260688 Oct 23, 1995 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Under which employees who ship their own HHG are reimbursed according to the commuted rate allowances prescribed in a schedule published by the General Services Administration. The employee's reimbursement is limited to his out-of-pocket expenses. 41 C.F.R. An employee asserts that a woman and her three children are members of his immediate family by virtue of his common-law marriage to the woman. Issues of marital status are determined by state law. The record in this case is insufficient to meet this test since the only evidence purporting to show the couple's marital relationship is a copy of a Federal income tax form they filed jointly as a married couple and two health insurance forms showing that the employee's insurance company paid a bill for the woman and a bill for one child under the employee's account. View Decision Matter of: Stephen P. Atkinson-Relocation Expenses-Household Goods Moving Expenses-Common-Law Spouse File: B-260688 Date: October 23, 1995 An agency authorized the shipment of a transferring employee's household goods (HHG) by the actual expense, or government bill-of-lading (GBL) method, under which the government assumes the responsibility of making the arrangements to ship the employee's HHG. However, the employee chose to ship his HHG himself and subsequently submitted a claim for reimbursement based on the commuted rate method, under which employees who ship their own HHG are reimbursed according to the commuted rate allowances prescribed in a schedule published by the General Services Administration. The applicable regulation provides that when an agency authorizes the shipment of an employee's HHG by the GBL method and the employee then chooses to make his own arrangements for the shipment of his HHG, the employee's reimbursement is limited to his out-of-pocket expenses. 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-40.203-2 (1994). See also John S. Phillips, 62 Comp.Gen. 375 (1983). For the purpose of claiming relocation allowances incident to his transfer, an employee asserts that a woman and her three children are members of his immediate family by virtue of his common-law marriage to the woman. Issues of marital status are determined by state law. In this case, the applicable state law (Colorado) requires clear, consistent and convincing evidence of conduct that manifests the parties' intent to establish a marital relationship. The record in this case is insufficient to meet this test since the only evidence purporting to show the couple's marital relationship is a copy of a Federal income tax form they filed jointly as a married couple and two health insurance forms showing that the employee's insurance company paid a bill for the woman and a bill for one child under the employee's account. DECISION Reimbursement for household goods moving expenses Generally, the shipment of an employee's household goods is accomplished by either of two methods. Under the so-called actual expense or GBL system, the government assumes the responsibility of making the arrangements for the transportation of the employee's household goods under a GBL and pays the carrier directly. Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) 41 C.F.R. Sec. 302-8.3(b). Under the commuted rate system, the employee arranges his own transportation and is reimbursed according to the commuted rate allowances prescribed in the Commuted Rate Schedule published by the General Services Administration (GSA). FTR Sec. 302-8.3(a). In the present case, the agency states that, in accordance with applicable regulations, it has limited Mr. Atkinson's reimbursement for moving his household goods to his actual out-of-pocket costs. However, it asks whether this is correct in view of earlier decisions of this Office that held that employees who moved their own household goods were entitled to the full commuted rate allowance. See William K. Melanize, B-181156, Nov. 19, 1974, which is cited by the agency. However, effective December 30, 1980, GSA adopted regulations providing that when the agency determines that the GBL method is to be used to ship an employee's household goods, if the employee subsequently chooses to move the household goods by some other means, his reimbursement is limited to his out-of-pocket expenses, not to exceed the maximum amount the government would have incurred had the goods been moved via the GBL. Those regulations remain in effect. 41 C.F.R. Sec. 101-40.203-2. In John S. Phillips, 62 Comp.Gen. 375 (1983), we announced that decisions following the contrary rule issued before the effective date of this regulation (such as Melanize, supra) would no longer be followed. Accordingly, the agency was correct in limiting Mr. Atkinson's reimbursement for moving his household goods to his out-of-pocket expenses, not to exceed the amount the agency would have incurred had the goods been moved via GBL. Status of Mr.