Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

titled to such commutation while under arrest. Pending decision of his case the disbursing officer is not authorized to pay him commutation for dependents during period of his arrest.

COMMUTATION OF QUARTERS, HEAT, AND LIGHT-NAVAL OFFI.

CERS MAINTAINING DEPENDENTS.

Officers of the Navy detached from sea duty and ordered to shore duty in the

United States, which is not “field duty,” cease to be entitled to commutation of quarters, heat, and light for dependents from the date of detach

ment from sea duty. Officers of the Navy detached from sea duty and ordered to otber sea duty

by the same orders are entitled to continue to receive commutation of quarters, heat, and light for dependents for the period intervening between

the detachment from the one and reporting for the other sea duty. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, January 18, 1922:

By your direction, I have letter of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy of December 28, 1921, referring for decision the question, presented by the Paymaster General of the Navy, whether decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, dated March 4, 1919, 25 Comp. Dec., 641, or decision of June 6, 1921, 27 Comp. Dec., 1036, governs right to commutation for dependents in case of officers of the Navy detached from sea duty and ordered to shore duty in the United States which is not “duty in the field.”

Statement is made that the effect of decision of March 4, 1919, has been to sanction the continuation of payment of commutation of quarters, heat, and light for dependents to an officer detached from sea duty from date of detachment to the date preceding that on which the officer reports at his new point of duty in the United States not considered as “duty in the field,” while the decision of June 6, 1921, apparently holds that right to such commutation in like cases terminates upon detachment from sea duty.

In the case considered in decision of March 4, 1919, the officer was detached from sea duty and ordered to other sea duty with intervening temporary shore duty, and the question for determination was whether he was entitled to commutation of quarters, heat, and light for dependents, for the period between detachment and reporting for the temporary shore duty, which was answered in the affirmative. In the case decided June 6, 1921, the officer was detached from sea duty and ordered to proceed to the United States and await orders; in that case the decision held that right to commutation for dependents terminated upon detachment from sea duty. The two decisions relate to different facts, in the first there not being the final separation from sea duty that appeared in the second decision.

Right of Navy officers to commutation for dependents under the act of April 16, 1918, 40 Stat., 530, is based on assimilation of their

allowances to allowances of officers of the Army under the act of March 3, 1899, 30 Stat., 1007. The act of April 16, 1918, provides such commutation to officers of the Army while in the performance of " duty in the field” and “ active duty without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Officers of the Navy to be entitled to such commutation must be in a duty status corresponding to “duty in the field” or “ active duty beyond the jurisdiction of the United States," and therefore their right to such commutation follows such relative status. See decision dated December 9, 1921.

An officer of the Army on “duty in the field,” ordered to duty at another post, also field duty, does not lose his “field-duty” status by reason of such change of post of duty, but continues in the same duty status while traveling to his new post of duty; also an officer of the Army ordered to duty “without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ” (duty abroad) acquires the status of such duty from date of leaving the United States until his return thereto from such duty. Hence the holding in 24 Comp. Dec., 688, that an Army officer while traveling from “duty in the field” to other duty in the field to which ordered, and when traveling to or returning from “active duty beyond the jurisdiction of the United States," is entitled to commutation for dependents.

In the case considered in decision of March 4, 1919, the officer concerned was ordered from sea duty to other sea duty with intervening temporary shore duty, and for that reason had the same relative status as an Army officer ordered from field duty to other field duty, the intervening duty being but temporary and incidental to the change of duty did not affect his “field-duty” status. In the decision of June 6, 1921, the officer was detached from sea duty, but was not ordered to any duty other than the travel necessary to return to the United States; therefore his field-duty status terminated upon detachment and with it his right to commutation for dependents.

It is apparent that the decision of March 4, 1919, could not be interpreted as holding that officers detached from sea duty to shore duty in the United States which is not “field duty” are entitled to continue in receipt of commutation for dependents until reporting for such shore duty, nor does the decision of June 6, 1921, deny to officers of the Navy when detached from sea duty and ordered to other sea duty by the same orders right to continue in receipt of commutation for dependents for the period intervening between detachment from the one and reporting for the other duty. It follows that the principle announced in each of the decisions in question governs the right of officers of the Navy to commutation for dependents in like circumstances.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL SOCIAL HYGIENE BOARD.

There is no authority for expending appropriations provided for assisting the

States in protecting the military and naval forces of the United States against venereal diseases, under control of the Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board, outside of the several States and the District of Columbia and not in assistance of or cooperation with the activities of any State or

the District of Columbia. Comptroller General McCarl to the Chairman United States Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board, January 18, 1922:

I have your letter of January 3, 1922, requesting decision whether the appropriation for assisting the States in protecting the military and naval forces of the United States against venereal diseases may be used for expenses proposed to be incurred in extending the protective social measures activities of the Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board to places beyond the limits of the 48 States and the District of Columbia at which it appears some measures of protection for the armed forces of the United States are needed. Your submission refers specifically to a request from the Surgeon General of the Navy for assistance of your board in connection with measures for protection of sailors from venereal diseases in the Canal Zone.

Chapter XV of the act of July 9, 1918, 40 Stat., 886, created the Interdepartmental Social Hygiene Board and defined its duties to be, among others, (1) to recommend rules and regulations for the expenditure of moneys allotted to the States under section 5 of the chapter; (2) to select the institutions and organizations and fix the allotments to each institution under said section 5. Section 5 of the chapter appropriates a lump sum to be expended under the directjon of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy to carry out the provisions of section 2 of the chapter. Section 2 authorizes and directs the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy to adopt measures for the purpose of assisting the various States in caring for civilian persons whose detention, isolation, quarantine, or commitment to institutions may be found necessary for the protection of the military and naval forces of the United States against venereal diseases.

The general tenor and scope of the provisions of this chapter are that of a measure of assistance to and cooperation with the several States in the protection of the armed forces of the United States against venereal diseases. Section 6 of the chapter appropriates a lump sum to be allotted among and paid to the States for use by their respective boards or departments of health in the prevention, control, and treatment of venereal diseases, such allotments to be conditioned upon the appropriating or setting apart by the State of a like amount. The section provides that allotments to each State shall be in the proportion which the population bears to the population of the continental United States, exclusive of Alaska and the Canal Zone, thus limiting the scope of this provision to the several States of the Union. The appropriation made by section 5 is expressly declared to be in addition to other appropriations of a more general character which are applicable to the same or similar purposes."

I find no authority of law for use of the appropriation made by section 5, and by later acts for the same purposes, for any other purpose than that of assisting the several States in detention, isolation, quarantine, or commitment of civilians for protection of the armed forces of the United States against venereal diseases. Section 8 of the chapter provides that the terms “State” or “States” as used in the chapter shall be held to include the District of Columbia, thus accentuating the intent and purpose that the act shall cover and apply otherwise only to the several States of the Union. There is therefore no authority of law for expending the appropriation for activities of your board which are outside of the several States or the District of Columbia, and not in assistance of or cooperation with the activities of any State.

RETIREMENT DEDUCTIONS. The entire amount of retirement deductions from Government employees'

salaries paid partly by the Federal Government and partly by a State Government may be made from the part of the salaries paid by the Federal Government. Proper explanatory notes of the transaction should be made

in the Remarks column on the Federal Government pay rolls. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of Agriculture, January 18, 1922:

I have your letter of December 30, 1921, stating that there are a number of employees of your department engaged on cooperative work authorized by law between the Federal Government and the several States whose salary is paid partly by the Federal Government and partly by the State Government from funds contributed by both Governments for carrying out the work.

Inasmuch as the 24 per cent retirement deductions are to be made from the combined salaries paid such employees, 27 Comp. Dec., 59, you ask if the entire deduction may not be made from the part of the salary paid by the Government instead of requiring the State to make the necessary deduction and transmit same to you for proper disposition, as is now being done. These employees, I understand, are employees of your department with fixed annual salaries. I see no objection to the proposed action, as under it the retirement fund receives all that is due it and the employees being paid the portion payable by the State without abatement receive all that they are entitled to, the appropriation is chargeable with no greater amount under the one procedure than under the other. However, proper explanatory notes of the transaction should be made in the Remarks column on the Government pay rolls.

AVIATION PAY TO STAFF OFFICERS OF ARMY.

Staff officers of the Army are not entitled to the 50 per cent increase of pay

authorized by the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 768, for aerial flight duty, notwithstanding the proper performance of their staff duties may at times

include a participation in aerial flights. 1 Comp. Gen., 263, affirmed. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, January 18, 1922:

I have your letter of December 19, 1921, on the subject of increased pay for officers of the Ordnance Department who in the performance of their appropriate staff duties are required to participate in aerial flights.

You suggest that paragraph 12697, Army Regulations, as amended by C. A. R. 107, dated July 22, 1920, together with the following clause found in section 13a of the act of Juno 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 768, are sufficient to entitle such officers to the increased pay:

Officers and enlisted men of the Army shall receive an increase of 50 per centum of their pay while on duty requiring them to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights; * *

You add that while the current appropriation, act of June 30, 1921, 42 Stat., 74, provides no funds specifically for extra pay for officers regularly participating in aerial flights except for officers of the Air Service, “this omission clearly indicates the intent that such pay should be taken from the appropriation ‘For pay of officers of the line and staff,' and that it should not be construed as confining the extra remuneration to officers and enlisted men of the Air Service.”

This latter proposition is subversive of the well-settled rule of statutory construction that where specific provision is made for an object a general provision which, but for the specific provision might have been applicable, is not applicable to the object specifically provided for. The appropriation “For aviation increase,” with its limitation“ to officers of the Air Service,” is, in these circumstances, exclusively available for the payment of aviation increase of pay. 1 Comp. Dec., 126, 236, 417, and 563; 2 id., 202; 4 id., 24 and 649; 19 id., 98; 22 id., 559.

Although, as just stated, no appropriation is available for the payment of such increase to officers of the Ordnance Department who in the performance of their appropriate staff duties are required to participate in aerial flights, there may be considered, pursuant to your request, the question whether in any event, in the present state of the law, such officers are entitled to aviation increase of pay, it kaving been held, November 17, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 263, that there was no authority of law for the payment of aviation increase of pay to officers of the staff corps and staff departments of the Army.

If the law cited stood independently, as the extract quoted, it could be accepted as entitling all officers of the Army, whether of the staff or of the line, to the increase of pay therein provided for participating in regular and frequent aerial flights. So standing, it is not am.

« ForrigeFortsett »