« ForrigeFortsett »
National Guard; * * * for expenses of enlisted men of the Regular Army on duty with the National Guard, including quarters, fuel, light, medicines, and medical attendance; and such expenses shall constitute a charge against the whole sum annually appropriated for the support of the National Guard, and shall be paid therefrom and not from the allotment duly apportioned to any particular State, Territory, or the District of Columbia ; * * *.
War Department Bulletin No. 42 of 1919, as amended by Section V of Bulletin No. 3 of 1922, establishes regulations governing reimbursement of traveling expenses of officers and enlisted men detailed for duty in connection with the National Guard and the reimbursable expenditures include cost of transportation, exclusive of land grant deductions, when travel is not made on transportation request.
The distance from Mount Gilead to Charlotte, N. C., by rail is 52 miles, and the fare is stated to be $1.88. Claim is made for $1.44, stated on the receipted subvoucher as follows: 6 gal, gas @26_---------------
-------- $1.56 gal, oil--
1.44 With respect to the certificate required on this voucher; an enlisted man's status with respect to tenure or continuance in the military service is different from that of an officer, he occupies a subordinate position, and good administration requires that the voucher shall be examined and approved for payment by an officer under whom the man is serving when the expenses are incurred. It is noted that the order in this case directs that the account for reimbursement be submitted through headquarters, Fourth Corps Area. The papers do not indicate that this was done, or, if so, the action taken there was not indicated on the papers.
Your questions are answered accordingly, and the voucher and related papers are returned herewith.
The suggestion of the instructor, South Carolina National Guard, contained in the papers, that had claimant “ charged $1.88 rail fare no question would have arisen "; and (referring to 22 Comp. Dec., 378) “likewise had the United States attorney charged rail fare and remained silent as to the actual method of locomotion no decision would have been written to plague all concerned,” would lead to the expense account not being in accordance with facts, and fraudulent. The law provides only for reimbursement of actual expenses ; claims for expenses not actually incurred in lieu of the actual expenditures constitute false claims against the Government and subject the claimant to criminal prosecution. See the ninety-fourth article of war, especially the fourth paragraph thereof. This fact should have been known to the officer, and should be brought to his attention.
COMMUTATION OF QUARTERS, HEAT AND LIGHT, FOR DE
PENDENTS OF NAVAL OFFICERS.
The act of April 16, 1918, 40 Stat., 530, providing for commutation of quarters,
heat and light, for dependents of naval officers on duty in the field or on active duty beyond the territorial limits of the United States when no public quarters are available, does not contemplate more than one abode for the officer's family or dependents, and if the Government furnishes an abode for the officer's wife, children, or dependent parent, no right
to commutation accrues. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, May 19, 1922:
I have your letter of April 28, 1922, requesting decision whether Lieut. J. E. Roberts, United States Navy, is entitled to commutation of quarters, heat, and light under the act of April 16, 1918, for dependent parents under the following conditions:
Lieutenant Roberts reported on board the receiving ship at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on October 3, 1921, and was provided with quarters for himself, wife and children, at the naval station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His father and mother live near Odessa, Fla., and have practically no income other than that received from him, which averages about $70 per month.
The act of April 16, 1918, 40 Stat., 530, provides that commissioned officers of the Army on duty in the field, or on active duty without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, shall be furnished in kind an abode or quarters for his wife, child, or dependent parent; and if such abode is not available the officer shall be paid commutation therefor.
Under the act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat., 1168, officers on duty at posts and stations were entitled to public quarters (suitable living quarters for self and family) in kind at the post or station, and if such public quarters were not available commutation therefor was authorized. Officers on field duty or on duty without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States were not entitled to such commutation privileges, and the purpose of the act of April 16, 1918, was to extend right to quarters in kind for the officer's family or dependents when he is not on duty at a post or station. The act of April 16, 1918, was not intended to apply where the act of 1907 applied, nor did it contemplate more than one abode for the officer's family or dependents. If the Government furnishes an abode for the officer's wife, child, or dependent parent. then no right to commutation accrues. 24 Comp. Dec., 68; 25 id., 540 and 985; 1 Comp. Gen., 41.
Since in the case in question the Government furnished quarters in kind for Lieutenant Roberts' wife and children, you are advised that no right to commutation for quarters, heat, and light accrued to Lieutenant Roberts by reason of the fact that he maintained an abode for his dependent parents.
A contractor is not entitled to reimbursement for additional costs incurred by
him in effecting delivery within the time required by the contract, due to conditions which might have excused the delay had delivery not been inade
within the time limit. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 19, 1922:
Coney Island Coal Co., Inc., requested April 5, 1922, review of settlement No. N-226903, dated March 16, 1922, disallowing its claim for $94 as extra expense of towing September 9 and 10, 1920, 88 tons of coal to the navy yard, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Under the terms of a contract entered into May 6, 1920, the Coney Island Coal Co. agreed to furnish the United States, f. o. b. cars, at the navy yard, Brooklyn, N. Y., during the period July 1, 1920, co June 30, 1921, among other sizes, 1,000 tons of broken size coal at $8.93 a ton and 1,500 tons of pea coal at $8.08 a ton. Due to impending railroad labor troubles, the contract was modified July 7, 1920, by a supplemental agreement, so as to provide for delivery by barge alongside should it be found impracticable to make delivery by railroad. For coal delivered by barge, a price of $8.53 was fixed for the broken size coal and $7.78 for the pea coal. The contract further provided that:
The quantities of coal noted as required for the purpose indicated under the respective classes have been estimater from the best inform:ition obtainable as to prospective requirements and inay be regarded as fairly accurately representing the maximum demands at the points described. It will, therefore, be understood that the contractor will furnish and deliver such coal of the kind specified as may be required and called for at the points named during the periods stated, and that the quantities to be taken will not exceed by more than 1 per cent those for which awards are placed, unless delivery of a greater quantity is mutually agreed to; also that. where practicable, every effort will be made to care for the tonnage contracted for in equal monthly deliveries.
Deliveries will be taken in car load or harge lots (as indicated under the respective classes), and will be made within 15 daye after receipt of order, in such quantities as may be required, and at the prices accepted by the Navy, on the order of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts or its representatives at the different points of delivery.
If the United States directs a change in the place or inanuer of delivery, in writing, it is understood that the contractor will be paid for any expense so incurred over and above the expense to which the said contractor is obligated hy the terms of the contract.
It appears that during the month of September, 1920, due to strike conditions, the contractor was unable to make deliveries as called for by the Brooklyn Navy Yard, but agreed to divert a consignment of coal for the city of New York at that time lying in the barge Elizabeth at Newton Creek, provided the United States would assume the towage charge from Newton Creek to the navy yard and the demurrage incident to the delay in discharge of the coal. This was verbally agreed to by the navy supply officer and the diversion
of the barge was made at a total additional cost of $94, which it is now claimed should be paid by the United States.
The contractor was under a contract liability to make delivery of coal within 15 days from the date orders therefor were given unless excused by the United States by reason of " strikes, riots, fire, or disasters, delays in transit or delivery on the part of transportation companies, or other circumstances beyond the control of the contractor.” The United States did not excuse the contractor from delivery of coal and, in fact, delivery was made notwithstanding the strike conditions. The contract provided for excuses for failure to make delivery—not for additional pay for delivery under conditions which might excuse delay. In order to make provision for deliveries should strike conditions interfere the supplemental agreement of July 7, 1920, specifically provided for delivery by barge and at a difference in price over that delivered by railroad. The contractor is not entitled to any sum in addition to the contract price for the coal diverted from the city of New York to the Brooklyn Navy Yard. 25 Comp. Dec. 992; 26 id., 87.
Upon review of the matter no differences are found and the settlement is sustained.
PACKING, CRATING, AND HAULING HOUSEHOLD GOODS OF
of a navaloods, incurred ajith the regulat
Reimbursement of a naval officer for the expense of packing, crating, and
hauling his household goods, incurred after receipt of orders for permanent change of station and in accordance with the regulations governing such expenditures, is not barred by the subsequent cancellation of the orders
for change of station. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 19, 1922:
Lieut. Commander Henry G. Fuller, United States Navy, applied April 26, 1922, for review of settlement No. N-95150, dated April 18, 1922, wherein was disallowed his claim for reimbursement for packing, crating, and hauling household effects from Savannah, Ga., to Annapolis, Md., in September, 1921.
The reason assigned for the disallowance was that the household effects were crated and shipped on September 17, 1921, in anticipation of claimant being relieved from duty in Savannah by reason of orders dated September 9, 1921, which orders were revoked by telegram dated September 21, 1921, and no change of station occured until detachment under orders dated January 3, 1922.
It appears that under date of September 9, 1921, orders were issued to claimant, which provided in part that upon the reporting of his relief he was detached from duty at the branch hydrographic office in Savannah, Ga., and was to proceed to such port where U. S. S. Biddle might be, for duty in command of that vessel. By telegram from the Bureau of Navigation dated September 21, 1921, these orders were revoked, and on September 22, 1921, orders were issued that upon reporting of relief he would be detached, and after an authorized delay of one month would report for duty in command of the U. S. S. Osmond Ingram. These orders were subsequently revoked by orders dated January 3, 1922, and on January 26, 1922, he was detached from duty in Savannah and after an authorized delay of one month was to assume command of the U. S. S. McKee.
It appears that claimant fulfilled all requirements of the regulations relative to procuring the service for packing, crating, hauling, and shipping his goods, and as his authorized allowance of 7,200 pounds was shipped on Government bill of lading his claim is for proportionate part of the $120 packing, crating, and hauling charge at Savannah, and $25 at Annapolis. This total shipment con- . sisted of 8,008 pounds.
The provisions of the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604, which grant to the personnel of the Navy “the benefits of all existing laws applying to the Army and Marine Corps for the transportation of household effects," must be recognized as lodging a certain measure of discretion in the Secretary of the Navy, to fix by regulations for the service under his jurisdiction the conditions under which the packing, crating, and hauling of household effects may be made that the cost thereof may be made a legal charge against the Government 27 Comp. Dec., 903.
Section 2, paragraph 8, of General Order No. 36, dated January 5, 1921, provides :
Where orders showing detachment have been delivered and where in exercise of his rights thereunder the person directed to make the change of station (under proper authorization, in writing) causes his household effects to be either partially or completely packed, crated, hauled, and shipped, or a supply officer, upon receipt of application in writing, performs a like degree of service for said person, such costs as may be incurred, in either instance, in connection with such partial or complete packing, crating, hauling, etc., prior to receipt of notice of the revocation of such orders, shall be chargeable to public expense. * *
It appears that upon receipt of orders dated September 9, 1921, and in anticipation of the change of duty which those orders would involve, claimant had his goods crated and packed, and on September 17, 1921, shipped them to Annapolis, which had relation to the home yard of the U. S. S. Biddle at Philadelphia, and was a less distance than to that point.
The household effects were packed, crated, and shipped, in response to the order of detachment and would ordinarily be contemplated thereby. There is nothing in the orders to indicate such services should not be obtained until the detachment had actually taken place. In orders of this character if the getting ready for detachment
7920°—22—Vol. 1— 45