is entitled to pay and allowances for the period August 17-21, 1941, under the conditions disclosed in this case.

Bureau of Navigation dispatch of August 1, 1941, to the Commanding Officer of the U. S. S. Skipjack is as follows:

Ltjg Richard B. Lynch proceed Brunswick, Maine report Aug twenty two or as soon thereafter as practicable OINC Navresradschol, Bowdoin College, temporary duty special course instruction in radio engineering X When directed by OINC about Oct thirty one proceed Washington, DC X Report Director Navreslab, Anacostia Station X Similar temporary duty X Completion and wher directed by director return.

This dispatch was confirmed by Bureau of Navigation letter of August 14, 1941, addressed to Lieutenant (j.g.) Lynch, as follows:

1. You will proceed to Brunswick, Maine, and report on August 22, 1941, or as soon thereafter as practicable, to the Officer in Charge, Naval Training School (Radio), Bowdoin College, for temporary duty for a special course of instruction in radio engineering.

2. When directed by the Officer in Charge, Naval Training School (Radio), on or about October 31, 1941. you will proceed to Washington, D. C., and report to the Director, Naval Research Laboratory, Anancostia Station, for a similar temporary duty.

3. This is in addition to your present duties and upon completion thereof and when directed by the Director, Naval Research Laboratory, you will return and resume your regular duties on board the U. S. S. Skipjack.

Indorsements on the officer's orders show that he received the dispatch orders on August 4, 1941; was detached from the U. S. S. Skipjack at Mare Island, Calif., on August 8, 1941; left Mare Island, Calif., August 8, 1941; arrived at Oakland, Calif., August 8, 1941; left Oakland, Calif., August 9, 1941; arrived at Portland, Maine, August 22, 1941; left Portland, Maine, August 22, 1941; arrived at Brunswick, Maine, August 22, 1941; and reported at the Naval Training School (Radio) at Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, August 22, 1941.

In an indorsement of November 7, 1941, the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation has stated as follows:

(c) Lieutenant Lynch at the time of receiving his despatch orders was attached to the U. S. S. Skipjack at that time at the Navy Yard, Mare Island, California. The movements of the vessel necessitated detachment on the eighth of August. The Bureau of Navigation anticipated that the movements of the ship might interfere with his reporting and worded his orders "report on 22 August," the date the course of instruction started, or "as soon thereafter as practicable."

3. Navy Regulations-Article 132-state: "An order from competent authority to an officer of the Navy or Marine Corps requiring him to proceed to any point, or to report for duty at a place not involving travel, but fixing no date and not expressing haste, shall be obeyed by reporting within four days, exclusive of travel time, after its receipt." [Italics ours.] It is the opinion of the Bureau of Navigation that the above provision allows an officer to proceed at his own convenience when a definite date for reporting is specified and the provision allowing 4 days proceed time is only applicable where no definite time for reporting is specified.

4. Bureau of Supplies and Accounts Memo #132, page 1993, in a decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, dated February 14, 1912, holds that where an officer is detached from duty and ordered to take passage on a specified date for duty beyond the seas, he is entitled to shore duty pay during the interim.

5. The decision says in part: "There is nothing in the orders to show any intention to place Commander Magruder on leave and that view is concurred in by the Navy Department. The officer was ordered to take passage on a transport sailing from San Francisco on or about a certain date and he fully complied 470350m-42-47

with the order." In this case Commander Magruder departed from Newport, R. I., September 30 and reported in San Francisco on the sixth of November.

6. The Bureau has written its order with references (a) and (b) [Article 132, Navy Regulations, and decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury dated Febuary 14, 1912] in mind and recommends that the checkage of pay for the period August 17 to 21, 1941, be withdrawn.

Paragraph 1, article C-4003, and article C-4004, Bureau of Navigation Manual, are as follows:

(1) Any authorized delay in an officer's reporting from one station to a new one is counted as leave, except for the time allowed by article 132, Navy Regulations.

C-4004. Delay in Travel-Temporary Duty Orders.—(C. B. N. M. 6.)

(1) When an officer is ordered to proceed to a station for temporary duty and upon completion to return and resume his regular duties or to proceed to some other station, he is allowed 4 days, exclusively of travel time, in which to report to the station for temporary duty, but upon completion of the temporary duty no delay in commencing the return travel or travel to the next station is authorized.

(2) Special attention is called to the fact that, in orders directing travel to more than one temporary-duty station, no delay is authorized in proceeding from the first temporary-duty station to the next, nor from any temporary-duty station to the permanent-duty station, even though the officer's orders contain the word "proceed," as in the customary wording, in ordering him from one temporaryduty station to another or from any temporary-duty station to his place of permanent duty.

(3) Attention is also called to article 132, Navy Regulations, which covers this matter.

Paragraph 8 (f), article 2140, and paragraph 19 (a) (1), article 2142, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts Manual, are, respectively, as follows:

Delay in travel in excess of time authorized, not excused as unavoidable, places the person in the status of absence without leave.

Officers proceeding to and from their stations under orders are entitled to pay as on duty for proceed time and travel time not in excess of time required over shortest usually traveled route. It is immaterial where the proceed time is spent. Allowed time in excess will be charged as leave. (See art. 2152-2 (k).) For delay in travel not allowed under orders or excused as unavoidable, see art. 2140-8 (f). The question whether delay in reporting under orders was or was not authorized is a matter for administrative determination by the Bureau of Navigation from the orders issued and all facts connected therewith. (Op. J. A. G. 00/L16-4 (4) (34123) K, January 18, 1935.)

Article 132 of the United States Navy Regulations is as follows:

An order from competent authority to an officer of the Navy or Marine Corps requiring him to proceed to any point, or to report for duty at a place not involving travel, but fixing no date and not expressing haste, shall be obeyed by reporting within four days, exclusive of travel time, after its receipt. If the order read "without delay," he shall report within 48 hours, exclusive of travel time, after its receipt; if "immediately," within 12 hours, exclusive of travel time, after its receipt; and all officers shall indorse on their orders the date and hour of their receipt. The foregoing allowances of time do not apply to any provisions of an officer's orders requiring him, after performing the duty specified, to return to his regular station or to proceed on further duty. Any delay in carrying out orders which may be granted to an officer of the Navy or Marine Corps by competent authority will be additional to the time allowed above.

The purpose of the above-quoted provisions is to discourage naval personnel from taking unreasonable periods of time in reporting to new temporary or permanent stations. Their purpose is not to

penalize officers for bona fide involuntary delays necessitated by the requirements of the service. Where an officer is not granted leave, the Government is entitled to the benefit of his services at his old station up to the time it is necessary to detach him in order that he may comply with orders to travel to another station for duty-allowing a reasonable time for preparation and travel as fixed by the regulations. The course of instruction which Lieutenant Lynch was ordered to attend did not start until August 22, 1941, and his orders did not require him to report at the school before that date. In the indorsement of the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation quoted above, it is stated that "the movements of the vessel necessitated detachment on the 8th of August." Thus, the officer's detachment from the U. S. S. Skipjack on August 8, 1941, apparently was necessary in order that he be in a position to comply with his orders to report at Bowdoin College on August 22, 1941.

Since the officer complied with his orders, which did not specify any authorized period of delay in reporting to his temporary duty station, and did not specify that any part of the period between the date of detachment from the vessel and the date of reporting for temporary duty was to be counted as leave, and since it appears the period of delay in excess of the usual proceed time and travel time resulted from conditions of the service over which the officer had no control, he is entitled to his regular pay and allowances for the entire period from August 8, 1941, to August 22, 1941, less the amount already paid for such period.

(B-22559)

TRAVEL BY PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILE-EMPLOYEE ACCOMPANIED BY WIFE-MILEAGE PRORATING NONNECESSITY

Where an employee is given advance authorization to use a privately owned automobile on official business and to claim reimbursement at the rate of 5 cents per mile without any advance notice that the mileage would be reduced in proportion to the number of passengers carried, a prorating of the total allowance of 5 cents per mile is not required on the basis that the employee's wife accompanied him. 5 Comp. Gen. 110, involving travel on actual expense basis, distinguished.

Comptroller General Warren to the Postmaster General, January 28, 1942: There was received your letter of December 13, 1942, as follows:

In auditing the September 1941, travel expense accounts of Post Office Inspectors, the Postal Accounts Division of your office reduced a number of claims for mileage for the use of privately owned automobiles on the ground that the inspectors were accompanied by members of their families. This action was based upon Decision A-10695, dated August 13, 1925, which decision was rendered under the Act of March 3, 1875 (5 U. S. C. 73), which provided that "only actual travel expenses shall be allowed." However, the Act upon which this decision was predicated applied to the cost of subsistence as well as to the cost of transportation. Subsequent to that decision the Subsistence Expense Act of 1926 (5 U. S. C. 823) was passed, authorizing the payment of a per diem allowance "in lieu of

the actual expenses." Under this act the sharing of accommodations has been pertinent only to the fixing of per diem rates and the prorating of per diem claims made at rates fixed by proper administrative authority has not been required.

The act of February 14, 1931 (5 U. S. C. 73a), authorized the payment of a mileage allowance not exceeding $0.05 per mile "in lieu of actual expenses of transportation." It would seem that under this act the sharing of accommodations would be pertinent to the fixing of mileage rates, but that prorating would not be relevant to mileage claims made at rates fixed by proper administrative authority and justified as required by Section 12-A, provided, of course, that other persons make no additional claim for reimbursement covering the same travel. This reasoning would seem to be supported by Decision B-15194, dated March 8, 1941 (20 C. G. 512), which states that the mileage law of 1931 "was enacted as an exception to the general statute of 1875 in order to allow payment of travel expenses on a commutation basis."

In the circumstances, it seems questionable whether the decision rendered in 1925 should be applied to mileage claims under the act of February 14, 1931. consequently a review of the action of the Postal Accounts Division of your office on the travel expense accounts of Inspectors Madison H. Ackerman (Certificate No. P-2733), John E. Fitzgerald (Certificate No. P-2733), Julius C. Lindland (Certificate No. P-2733), Star P. Pinkham (Certificate No. P-2744), and Thomas H. Jervey (Certificate No. P-2778) is requested.

As shown by letters attached to each expense account on which a review of the audit action taken by this office is requested, the Chief Inspector of the Post Office Department called to the attention of the inspectors involved the ruling of this office of August 13, 1925, 5 Comp. Gen. 110, and requested an amended account for a prorated share of the mileage allowance because of the fact that the wife of the inspector, or other person, accompanied him. Upon receipt by the Chief Inspector of an explanation from each of the inspectors respecting the fact that his wife accompanied him in connection with the official travel, the full mileage allowance was certified by the Department to this office for payment. In the settlement of these travel accounts this office did not accept the explanation thus furnished but required prorating under the rule stated in the decision-5 Comp. Gen. 110-which held as follows, quoting from the syllabus:

An employee of the Government, accompanied by his wife while traveling on official business, may be reimbursed only for one-half the cost of gasoline and oil consumed in his privately owned automobile.

The act of February 14, 1931, 46 Stat. 1103, provides as follows:

That a civilian officer or employee engaged in necessary travel on official business away from his designated post of duty may be paid, in lieu of actual expenses of transportation, under regulations to be prescribed by the President, not to exceed 3 cents per mile for the use of his own motorcycle or 7 cents per mile for the use of his own automobile for such transportation, whenever such mode of travel has been previously authorized and payment on such mileage basis is more economical and advantageous to the United States. *

The mileage rate fixed in the original law for the use of an employee's own automobile was reduced to 5 cents per mile by section 9 of the act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1516, and the words "his own" appearing in the original statute were changed to "a privately owned" by the act of April 25, 1940, 54 Stat. 167.

Paragraph 1 of Bulletin No. 7 (amended and condensed January 2, 1941), entitled, "Use of Private Automobiles-Mileage Basis," issued by the Post Office Department, reads as follows:

Pursuant to amended section 12a of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, inspectors are authorized to use their own and other privately owned automobiles for necessary official travel away from their designated post of duty and to claim reimbursement therefor at the rate of 5 cents per mile upon complying with the provisions of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations and the Manual of Instructions.

The remaining portion of the bulletin is a reprint of the applicable provisions of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations and certain regulations in this office prescribing the forms to be used in such

cases.

There is nothing in the mileage law as originally enacted or as amended or in any of the provisions of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations requiring a prorating of mileage allowance where reimbursement is authorized in advance to be made on a mileage basis. for the use of a privately owned automobile in the performance of official travel by reason of the fact that the wife of the official traveler accompanied him. Compare, however, 20 Comp. Gen. 512; id. 913; and General Regulations 88, General Accounting Office. As you state, the rule stated in the decision of August 13, 1925, supra, was for application only in cases where reimbursement of transportation expenses was authorized to be made on an actual expense basis, and was rendered prior to the mileage law of 1931 which created an exception to the general statute of 1875 in order to allow payment of traveling expenses on a commutation basis.

In decision of December 29, 1931, A-39963, it was stated:

It has been repeatedly held that an employee using his own automobile on an actual expense basis and accompanied by a person not an officer or employee of the Government, may not be reimbursed for more that his proportionate share of the cost of gasoline and oil so consumed, which share constitutes the actual cost of his transportation under such circumstances. See 9 Comp. Gen. 381, and decisions therein cited. The act of February 14, 1931, 46 Stat. 1103, permits the payment, in lieu of actual expenses of transportation, of mileage at not to exceed 7 cents per mile for the use of an employee's own automobile whenever such mode of travel has been previously authorized and payment on that basis is more economical and advantageous to the United States. The employee in this case received advance authority to use his personally owned automobile at 7 cents per mile, and there is on file a certificate by the District Director, dated August 24, 1931, to the effect that by the use of his automobile the employee saved 8 days' subsistence expenses and, in addition thereto, was enabled to visit certain places not available by other means of transportation.

The employee having been given advance authority to use his own automobile and receive 7 cents per mile in lieu of actual cost of transportation without any advance notice that the mileage would be reduced proportionately to the number of passengers carried, he is entitled to receive payment in full of the mileage so authorized, in the absence of other objection.

Accordingly, as the inspectors whose accounts are here involved were given advance authorization by Bulletin No. 7 to use their privately owned automobiles on official business and to claim reimbursement at the rate of 5 cents per mile without any advance notice that the mileage