any fees which may have been earned during the quarter in excess of this maximum should be suspended until the settlement of the next quarterly account, and adjusted in connection with the settlement of that account, and of subsequent quarterly accounts so as to keep the aggregate compensation as deputy clerk and commissioner for the fiscal year, or any quarter, or quarters, thereof within the maximum rate fixed by the statute. The computation should not include the temporary additional compensation of $240 per annum allowed by law to the deputy clerk as a salaried civilian employee of the United States. As thus modified the memorandum decision is approved. ARMY PAY-LONGEVITY-ENLISTED MEN. Enlisted men of the Army are not entitled to count prior service in the Coast Guard in computing longevity increase of pay, under section 4b of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 761. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, September 23, 1921: Existing laws providing for continuous service pay are repealed to take effect July 1, 1920, and thereafter enlisted men shall receive an increase of 10 per centum of their base pay for each five years of service in the Army, or service which by existing law is held to be the equivalent of Army service, such increase not to exceed 40 per centum. The act of January 28, 1915, 38 Stat., 802, provides: The provisions of sections three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine of the Act of April twelfth, nineteen hundred and two, in so far as they provide for the retirement of officers of the Revenue-Cutter Service, are hereby extended to include commissioned officers, warrant officers, and enlisted men of the Coast Guard. A commissioned officer, warrant officer, or enlisted man who has served thirty years, upon suitable application and as to commissioned officers upon approval by the Secretary of the Treasury, may be retired from active service and receive seventy-five per centum of the duty pay, salary, and increase of his grade or rating: * * Provided further, That in computing length of service for any purpose all creditable service in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Revenue-Cutter Service, and Life-Saving Service shall be included, counting part of a year as a whole year where stations were operated only a part of a year. Prior to the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 603, an enlisted man of the Coast Guard could count his prior creditable service in the Army, both for retirement and for increased pay for length of service. 21 Comp. Dec., 585. By section 8 of the act last named it was provided: That commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and other enlisted men of the Coast Guard shall receive the same pay, allowances, and increases as now are, herein are, or hereafter may be prescribed for corresponding grades or ratings and length of service in the Navy; * Under this act it has been held that an enlisted man of the Coast Guard may not count service either in the Army or Navy for increased pay for length of service. 27 Comp. Dec., 380; id., 448. I do not find that service in the Coast Guard was ever authorized to be counted by enlisted men of the Army either for increased pay for length of service or for retirement. This being true, service in the Coast Guard on and prior to July 1, 1920, was not service which "by existing law is held to be the equivalent of Army service" for an enlisted man. Accordingly, you are informed that Sergeant Smith is not entitled to count his service in the Coast Guard for longevity pay purposes under the act of June 4, 1920. The papers received with your letter are returned herewith. TRAVEL ALLOWANCES OF MEN OF NAVY DISCHARGED UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS FOR CONVENIENCE OF GOVERNMENT. Men of the Navy who enlisted after March 3, 1921, and who are discharged under honorable conditions prior to expiration of enlistment for the convenience of the Government, are entitled to travel allowances under the act of February 28, 1919, 40 Stat., 1203. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, September 23, 1921: I have letter of September 10, 1921, of the Acting Judge Advocate General, Navy Department, requesting decision whether men who enlisted in the Navy after March 3, 1921, and who may be discharged under honorable conditions prior to expiration of their enlistments for the convenience of the Navy, are entitled to travel allowance authorized in the act of February 28, 1919, 40 Stat., 1203. The submission is replied to on the assumption that it was made by your authority, the jurisdiction of this office being such as to require such submissions to be made by the head of the department concerned. The decision of July 14, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 16, held that enlisted men honorably discharged from an enlistment entered into after March 3, 1921, for their own interest and convenience before expiration of their enlistments are not entitled to travel allowance. The converse of that, as respects interest and convenience, is true, and enlisted men honorably discharged from an enlistment entered into after March 3, 1921, for the interest or convenience of the Government are entitled to travel allowance. Apparently your question is whether a discharge issued under "honorable conditions" comes within the meaning of "honorably discharged" as used in the act of February 28, 1919. The Comptroller of the Treasury in decision of April 17, 1919, 25 Comp. Dec., 792, held that An enlisted man who is not dishonorably discharged nor discharged without honor, but is discharged under honorable conditions, although the word 'honorably" is omitted from the discharge paper, may be said to be honorably discharged within the meaning of section 3 of the act of February 28, 1919. The Act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 217, of which the act of February 28, 1919, is amendatory, contained instead of the expression "honorably discharged " the words "when discharged from the service, except by way of punishment for an offense." It is apparent that the term "honorably discharged" involves practically the same requisites and requires no more than that the conditions under which the men are discharged shall be consistent with honor. Accordingly you are advised that men who enlisted after March 3, 1921, and who may be discharged under honorable conditions prior to expiration of their enlistments for the convenience of the Navy, are entitled to travel allowance authorized in the act of February 28, 1919, 40 Stat., 1203. PAY OF MEN OF ARMY UNDER SAVING CLAUSE IN ACT OF JUNE 4, 1920. The decision of August 8, 1921, to the effect that the saving clause in section 4 of act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 761, applies only during the period an enlisted man holds the grade he held on June 4, 1920, and continues to serve under the enlistment in which serving on that date, will be given effect from September 1, 1921, and will not operate to disturb prior payments correctly computed and in accordance with preceding decisions. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, September 24, 1921: I have your letter of August 25, 1921, as follows: In your decision of August 8, 1921, with reference to the pay of an enlisted man who on June 4, 1920, held the grade of cook, horseshoer, wagoner, mechanic, chauffeur, saddler, musician first, second or third class (grades abolished by G. O. 36, W. D., 1920), and who was regraded as private, first class, or private with specialist rating July 1, 1920, you state that "It is only during the period the enlisted man holds the grade he held on June 4, 1920, and continues to serve under the enlistment in which he served on June 4, 1920, that the saving clause is applicable to his case." Under decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury of October 9, 1920, 27 Comp. Dec., 335, 342, approving examples given in paragraph 5, G. O. 44, W. D., 1920, and under unpublished decisions dated February 15 and May 10, 1921, an enlisted man who on June 4, 1920, held a grade above mentioned which was abolished by G. O. 36, W. D., 1920, and who was regraded as private, first class, or private with specialist rating July 1, 1920, was considered entitled to the benefits of the saving clause in section 4b, act of June 4, 1920, so long as he held the grade to which regraded on July 1, 1920, and continued to serve under the enlistment in which he served on June 4, 1920, and payments have been and are being made on that basis at the present time. Although it is not specifically so stated therein, the statement above quoted from your decision of August 8, 1921, would appear to overturn the basis of payment established by the former decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury involving the application of the saving clause to the grades abolished by G. O. 36, W. D. 1920, and to hold that there was a change in grade in such cases which would bring the enlisted men who formerly held the abolished grade under the rates of pay established by the act of June 4, 1920. The enlisted men whose grades were abolished by G. O. 36, W. D., 1920, have not, subsequent to July 1, 1920, held the grades which they held on June 4, 1920. If it is the intention of the General Accounting Office to overturn the basis of payment authorized by the former decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, it is believed that an effective date should be given for such change which will permit the new rates of pay to become operative on the first day of a future month, and thus avoid a readjustment of the pay accounts of the enlisted men concerned covering the period for which pay rolls have already been prepared or payments made. This is especially desirable in view of the final payments which are now being made to enlisted men discharged on account of reduction of the Army. Therefore, if the decision of August 8, 1921, is intended to have the effect above indicated, I have to request that you so advise me and that the provisions therefor with respect to the departure from the rulings of the Comptroller of the Treasury be made effective from September 1, 1921, in order that an opportunity may be had to issue instructions and promulgate regulations which will not have a retroactive bearing upon the pay of enlisted men. I do not understand that you are questioning the correctness of the decision of August 8, 1921, but rather requesting that it be made effective from September 1, 1921, in order that an opportunity may be had to issue instructions and promulgate regulations which will not have a retroactive bearing upon the pay of enlisted men. Inasmuch as whatever confusion about these payments exists arises under an interpretation placed by the War Department on prior decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, under which it was believed the holding to be that, notwithstanding the abolishment of certain grades, the enlisted men could be considered as still holding substitute or assimilated grades and thus brought within the saving clause of the act of June 4, 1920. In view of what is thus stated, I think the decision of August 8, 1921, may properly be made effective from and after September 1, 1921, which will preserve to the enlisted men the pay which they have received prior to that date. The decision of August 8, 1921, will not operate to disturb payments made by disbursing officers up to and including August 31, 1921, if such payments were correctly computed and are in accord with what was believed to be decisions in force at the time of payment and prior to August 8, 1921. RETIRED PAY-ENLISTED MEN OF THE MARINE CORPS COMMISSIONED DURING WAR. Retired enlisted men of the Marine Corps who are entitled to the retired pay and allowances of warrant officers on the retired list by reason of service as commissioned officers during the World War, under the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 786, retain their status as retired enlisted men and with such status the right to receive in addition to the retired pay and allowances of a warrant officer the full amount of 75 cents per month for each good-conduct medal, pin, or bar they may hold. Comptroller General McCarl to Lieut. S. F. Birthright, United States Marine Corps, September 24, 1921: By reference of the Judge Advocate General, Navy Department, I received on September 13, 1921, your letter of August 19, 1921, requesting decision whether Quartermaster Sergt. William Henry Brooke, United States Marine Corps, retired, is entitled to pay for 7920°-22-Vol. 1—12 one good-conduct medal and one bar in addition to the rate of pay established by decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury in 27 Comp. Dec., 1010. The Comptroller of the Treasury in said decision construed the words "shall receive the retired pay and allowances of warrant officers on the retired list," as used in the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 786, as authorizing three-fourths the base pay plus 40 per cent longevity increase, of a warrant officer of the Army. The retired pay and allowances of a warrant officer of the Army are determined by the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 761, as follows: Warrant officers other than those of the Army Mine Planter Servshall be entitled to retirement under the same con ice, * ditions as commissioned officers; Commissioned officers of the Army are retired upon a percentage of the "pay of the rank" plus accrued longevity. See section 1274, Revised Statutes, and the act of March 2, 1903, 32 Stat., 932. * In 14 Comp. Dec., 176, it was held, quoting from the syllabus: Retired enlisted men of the Marine Corps, are entitled to receive the full amount of 75 cents per month for each good-conduct medal, pin, or bar they may hold, * In arriving at this decision the Comptroller of the Treasury referred to 9 Comp. Dec. 164, in reference to which he states: This decision was based on the ground that the said additional pay was permanent pay, but no part of the pay of the rank or rating of an enlisted man, and therefore should not be included in computing 75 per centum of the pay of his rank or rating under section 17 of the act of March 3, 1899, 80 Stat., 1008, providing that when an enlisted man of the Navy is retired he shall thereafter receive seventy-five per centum of the pay and allowances of the rank or rating upon which he was retired. Quartermaster Sergt. Brooke has not lost his status as a retired enlisted man by reason of the receipt of pay based on that of a warrant officer of the Army, and I am of the opinion that the holding of the Comptroller of the Treasury in 14 Comp. Dec., 176, has equal application to this case. You are accordingly advised that the rate of pay authorized in 27 Comp. Dec., 1010, should be further increased by $1.65 per month. SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS OF COMMON CARRIERS DURING FED ERAL CONTROL. A claim for switching or shifting services rendered the War Department during the period of Federal control of railroads is of the class embraced within the settlement between the United States Railroad Administration and the War Department made August 4, 1920, by the Auditor for the War Department, and revised by the Comptroller of the Treasury August 12, 1920, and no additional payment may be authorized. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, September 24, 1921: The Director General, United States Railroad Administration, applied September 2, 1921, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in disallowing by settlement No. 753913, dated January 29, 1921, a claim of the West Jersey & Seashore Rail |