Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

charge gratuity upon extension of his enlistment. In 1 Comp. Gen., 194, dated October 8, 1921, it was held that the act of July 12, 1921, 42 Stat., 139, authorizes no more gratuity to be paid than would be the equivalent of one month's pay for each year's service in the prior enlistment.

In the case presented Nackbar's total service in the enlistment which began on April 26, 1917, and terminated by discharge on July 6, 1921, was 4 years 2 months and 11 days, and since his reenlistment on August 4, 1921, was for 4 years, he is entitled to a gratuity of 4 months' pay.

Your other question is whether Nackbar during his present enlistment period is entitled to continuous-service pay and pay under General Order 34, acquired by reason of extending the period of war enlistment.

The act of July 11, 1919, 41 Stat., 140, entitled an enlisted man who extended a duration-of-war enlistment to the same rights” relative to continuous-service pay and pay under General Order 34 as then provided by law for men who extended a regular enlistment for four years. The Comptroller of the Treasury in 26 Comp. Dec., 399 and 706, held that the right to increase of continuous-service pay acquired by reason of the extension of a four-year enlistment period as provided in the act of August 22, 1912, 37 Stat., 331, except when the extension or extensions aggregated four years, does not continue through subsequent continuous service, but terminates upon the man's discharge at expiration of the extended period of enlistment. That conclusion was based on the apparent legislative intent, and apparently inequity would arise if they were allowed the same benefit for a one-year extension as for a four-year extension.

It follows, therefore, that the increase in continuous service pay acquired by reason of extending a period of the war enlistment for two years does not continue through subsequent service, but terminates upon the man's discharge at expiration of the extended enlistment. The principle applied to the duration of continuous service pay acquired by reason of the extension of period of war enlistment also applies to the duration of pay under General Order 34, so acquired, and such additional pay terminates upon discharge from the extended enlistment.

Accordingly, you are advised that in the specific case presented right to the continuous service pay and pay under General Order 34, to which Nackbar became entitled during the period he served under the extension of the period of war enlistment, terminated upon his discharge on July 6, 1921, and that for the reenlistment period beginning on August 4, 1921, he is entitled only to the continuous service pay and pay under General Order 34, which accrues for a first reenlistment following the completion of a four-year enlistment.

CONTINUOUS SERVICE PAY AND PAY UNDER GENERAL ORDER

34-COAST GUARD.

Enlisted men of the Coast Guard given honorable discharges from period of the

war enlistments under the act of July 11, 1919, 41 Stat., 139, are entitled to have such period of service counted as the equivalent of a full statutory period of three years as fixed by law for the Coast Guard in computing continuous service pay and pay under General Order 34.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, October 24, 1921.

I have your letter of September 24, 1921, requesting decision as to the length of service to be counted for a period of the war enlistment in the Coast Guard, in computing continuous service pay and pay under General Order 34, in case of a man who has received an honorable discharge under the act of July 11, 1919, prior to completion of three years' service, and has reenlisted within the period that entitles him to continuous service.

Right to continuous service pay, and pay under General Order 34, except as provided in case of extension of enlistments, accrues only when the last statutory period of enlistment was terminated by reason of expiration of enlistment. An exception to this general provision occurs in case of the period of service from which enlisted men of the Navy received an honorable discharge in the course of demobilization under provisions of the act of July 11, 1919, 41 Stat., 139, which period of service is the equivalent of a full statutory period of four years and entitles the men discharged therefrom, if otherwise qualified, to pay under General Order 34 and continuous service pay in subsequent enlistments. See 27 Comp. Dec., 814.

That act provides: All enlisted men of the Navy and Coast Guard who have served in the war with the German Government and who may hereafter be discharged or who have been discharged from the service since November 11, 1918, and before the expiration of their full enlistinent shall receive * * * an honorable discharge * * . Provided, That the records of such men warrant such honorable discharge.

Apparently your question is whether the period of war enlistment, being as to Coast Guard men an enlistment not to exceed three years, entitles when terminated by discharge prior to expiration of the three years, to continuous service pay and pay under General Order 34, upon reenlisting.

The benefits accruing under the act of July 11, 1919, to enlisted men of the Navy with respect to discharge before expiration of enlistment are the same as those which accrue upon discharge at expiration of a full statutory enlistment. Likewise, the benefits accruing under that act to the enlisted men of the Coast Guard are the same as the benefits accruing to them upon discharge at expiration of a full statutory period of enlistment, which is three years.

7920°—22—V0L, 1 17

Since under the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 603, enlisted men of the Coast Guard are entitled to the same pay as enlisted men of the Navy of corresponding ratings and length of service, it follows that enlisted men of the Coast Guard who are given honorable discharges under the provisions of the act of July 11, 1919, are entitled to have such period of service counted as the equivalent of a full statutory period of three years as fixed by law for the Coast Guard.

Accordingly, you are advised that in the computation of a fouryear period of service necessary to entitle an enlisted man of the Coast Guard to continuous-service pay or pay under General Order 34, as held in 27 Comp. Dec., 383, for the period of the war enlistment from which he has received an honorable discharge as provided in the act of July 11, 1919, he is entitled to credit of three years.

MEDALS OF HONOR, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.

An enlisted man of the Navy or Marine Corps awarded a medal of honor on or

after February 4, 1919, for distinguished acts of heroism or service in line of his profession, is not entitled to a gratuity of $100 under section 1407, Revised Statutes, that law having been superseded by the act of February 4. 1919, 40 Stat., 1056, providing two dollars additional pay per month from date of distinguished act or service.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, October 25, 1921.

By your direction, I have letter of the paymaster, Marine Corps, of September 29, 1921, requesting decision whether an enlisted man of the Navy or Marine Corps who has been awarded a medal of honor under section 1407, Revised Statutes, for “extraordinary heroism in line of his profession” is entitled to the gratuity of $100 as provided in that law.

The specific case presented is that of Albert Joseph Smith, private, United States Marine Corps, who has been awarded a medal of honor and gratuity of $100 “ for extraordinary heroism in rescuing at the risk of his life Plen M. Phelps, m.m., 2c, United States Navy, from a burning sea plane which had crashed at the Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Fla., 11 February, 1921."

The question for determination in this case involves whether the act of February 4, 1919, 40 Stat., 1056–1057, repealed the provisions relative to medals of honor in section 1407, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat., 1099, which act provided :

That any enlisted man of the Navy or Marine Corps who shall have distinguished himself in battle or displayed extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession shall, upon the recommendation of his commanding officer, approved by the flag-officer and the Secretary of the Navy, receive a gratuity and medal of honor as provided for seamen in section fourteen hundred and seven of the Revised Statutes.

Section 1407, Revised Statutes, provided a gratuity of $100.

The act of February 4, 1919, 40 Stat., 1056, provided as follows:

That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to present, in the name of Congress, a medal of honor to any person who, while in the naval service of the United States, shall, in action involving actual conflict with the enemy, distinguish himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty and without detriment to the mission of his command or the command to which attached.

Sec. 2. That the President be, and he hereby is, further authorized to present, but not in the name of Congress, a distinguished-service medal of appropriate design and a ribbon, together with a rosette or other device to be worn in lieu thereof, to any person who, while in the naval service of the United States, since the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seventeen, has distinguished, or who hereafter shall distinguish, himself by exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility.

Sec. 3. That the President be, and he hereby is, further authorized to present, but not in the name of Congress, a Navy cross of appropriate design and a ribbon, together with a rosette or other device to be worn in lieu thereof, to any person who, while in the naval service of the United States, since the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and seventeen, has distinguished, or who shall hereafter distinguish, himself by extraordinary heroism or distinguished service in the line of his profession, such heroism or service not being sufficient to justify the award of a medal of honor or a distinguished-service medal.

Sec. 4. That each enlisted or enrolled person of the naval service to whom is awarded a medal of honor, distinguished-service medal, or a Navy cross shall, for each such award, be entitled to additional pay at the rate of $2 per month from the date of the distinguished act or service on which the award is based, and each bar or other suitable emblem or insignia, in lieu of a medal of honor, distinguished-service medal, or Navy cross, as hereinafter provided for, shall entitle him to further additional pay at the rate of $2 per month from the date of the distinguished act of service for which the bar is awarded, and such additional pay shall continue throughout his active service, whether such seryice shall or shall not be continuous.

The Comptroller of the Treasury in decision dated December 8, 1919, 26 Comp. Dec., 464, relative to these acts held that the act of February 4, 1919, was a substitute for, and repealed, all prior acts affecting the conferring of medals of honor and gratuities for distinguished naval service, and that subsequent to the date of the act an enlisted man's right to additional pay or gratuities for such medals was to be determined thereby.

The case before the Comptroller in that decision involved the award of a medal of honor “for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity” in actual conflict with the enemy. In the present case it is pointed out that since section 1407, Revised Statutes, specified that medals of honor may be awarded to men for “ distinguishing themselves in battle” and for “extraordinary heroism in line of their profession"_two distinct acts—and the case before the Comptroller involved only distinction in battle, the question now presented was not considered in that decision.

It appears that the medal in question was awarded in accordance with an opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy Department, to the effect that since the prior statutes authorized the awarding of a medal of honor for extraordinary heroism in line of their profession as well as for distinguished service in battle, while the act of February 4, 1919, only authorized such medal for distinguished service in actual conflict with the enemy, and contained no provision relative to the repeal of prior laws, the provision in the prior laws for awarding a medal for extraordinary heroism in the line of their profession not being substituted or modified in the act of February 4, 1919, was therefore still in force.

While the act of February 4, 1919, provided a medal of honor only for distinguished service "in action involving actual conflict with the enemy” which corresponds to distinguished service in battle as provided in section 1407, Revised Statutes, it does, however, provide a medal (a Navy cross) to any person who shall distinguish "himself by extraordinary heroism or distinguished service in the line of his profession." Though such recognition of heroism is not denominated a medal of honor, in its effect it fulfills the same purpose and is given for the identical service-"extraordinary heroism in line of their profession”-and, therefore, in that sense the act of February 4, 1919, does provide a medal for all the acts for which a medal of honor was provided in section 1407,. Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 3, 1901.

The reason stated in 26 Comp. Dec., 464, for holding that the act of February 4, 1919, repealed the earlier acts providing a medal of honor and gratuities for heroism in the naval service was that the scope of that act shows clearly that it dealt with the entire subject matter involved in the earlier acts and constituted a complete substitute therefor. That such was the legislative intent is borne out by the facts shown herein relative to the purpose of the Navy cross, also by the following proviso in section 8 of the act:

That in cases of persons now in the naval service for whom the award of the medal of honor has been recommended in full compliance with then existing regulations, but on account of services which, though insufficient fully to justify the award of the medal of honor, appears to have been such as to justify the award of the distinguished service medal or Navy cross hereinbefore provided for, such cases may be considered and acted upon under the provisions of this Act authorizing the award of the distinguished service medal and Navy cross notwithstanding that said service may have been rendered more than five years before said cases shall have been considered as authorized by this proviso, but all consideration or any action upon any of said cases shall be based exclusively upon official records now on file in the Navy Department.

That proviso in the act waived certain requirements in order to adapt the provisions of the act to cases coming under prior law and not finally determined. It was a recognition that prior laws authorized the awarding of a medal of honor for acts for which the law of February 4, 1919, did not award such medal, and prescribed that in such cases the distinguished service medal or Navy cross may be awarded. It would seem, therefore, that the act of February 4, 1919, makes due provision for the specific case in question, and is,

« ForrigeFortsett »