Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Comptroller General McCarl to Commander L. W. Jennings, jr., United States Navy, August 17, 1921:

By reference of the Judge Advocate General, your letter of June 20, 1921, addressed to the Comptroller of the Treasury, was received by this office July 23, 1921, for decision upon the matter therein stated as follows:

George August Shumacher, chief machinist's mate, was transferred to the
Fleet Naval Reserve on 8 January, 1918, after service as follows:
U.S. Marine Corps :

December 4, 1901, to December 3, 1905.
U. S. Navy:

February 24, 1906, to February 23, 1910.
February 24, 1910, to January 8, 1914.

January 9, 1914, to January 8, 1918.
The act of 1 July, 1918, 40 Stat., 710, contains the provision:

“ Service in the Navy, Marine Corps, National Naval Volunteers, and Naral Militia shall be counted as continuous service in the Naval Reserve Force, both for the purpose of retirement and of computing retainer pay."

It is requested that I be advised whether in computing his retainer pay, I am authorized to credit the above-named man with the increase provided by article 4427 (23), Navy Regulations, 1913, on account of his enlistment in the Navy on 24 February, 1906, following his discharge from the Marine Corps, on 3 December, 1905.

The act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 590, provides: Members of the Fleet Naral Reserve who have, when transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve, completed naval service of sixteen or twenty or more years shall be paid a retainer at the rate of one-third and one-half respectively, of the base pay they were receiving at the close of their last naval service plus all permanent additions thereto:

It will thus be seen that the retainer pay of a “transferred” member of the Fleet Naval Reserve is computed, as to “permanent additions,” on those he was entitled to as a member of the Regular Navy on date of tranfer.

In 27 Comp. Dec., 845, it was held, quoting from the syllabus :

Enlisted men of the Navy are not entitled to credit for prior service in the Marine Corps in computing continuous-service pay * * *

As Shumacher was not, as an enlisted man of the Regular Navy, entitled to continuous-service pay by reason of his service in the Marine Corps, he was not on date of transfer in receipt of a “permanent addition” of $1.50 per month by reason thereof.

The provision from the act of July 1, 1918, quoted in your letter, is taken from a paragraph which from its general application as well as its opening and closing sentences, shows, by excepting “transferred” members of the Fleet Naval Reserve, that the whole paragraph relates to "enrolled” members. It has also been held by the Comptroller of the Treasury that the restriction on eligibility for retirement does not apply to “transferred” members.

Furthermore, length of service in the Naval Reserve Force does not enter into the computation of retainer pay of “transferred " members of the Fleet Naval Reserve.

You are accordingly advised that Chief Machinist's Mate Shumacher is not entitled in computing his retainer pay to credit for the increase provided by article 4427 (23), Naval Regulations, 1913, on account of the enlistment in question.

HONORABLE DISCHARGE GRATUITY-ARMY, ENLISTED MEN. An enlisted man who enlisted in the Army for a term of seven years and is

continued in active service for more than four years does not thereby become entitled to the honorable discharge gratuity at the expiration of the four-year period, as such gratuity is payable only upon a reenlistment

within three months after receipt of an honorable discharge. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 17, 1921:

Wade V. Jones applied August 8, 1921, for revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in disallowing by settlement No. 780276, dated June 13, 1921, his claim for three months' extra pay as a private, Company H, Nineteenth Infantry.

It appears that the claimant entered the military service on June 27, 1914, as a private of Company H, Nineteenth Infantry, and served continuously, as a private, until October 20, 1919, when he was furloughed to the Regular Army Reserve. He was discharged on June 4, 1920.

It is contended that on the expiration of four years' active service the claimant was entitled to three months' extra pay under the act of May 11, 1908, 35 Stat., 110, which reads:

That hereafter any private soldier, musician, or trumpeter honorably discharged at the termination of his first enlistment period who reenlists within three months of the date of said discharge shall, upon such reenlistment, receive an amount equal to three months' pay at the rate he was receiving at the time of his discharge.

The statute in force at the time of claimant's enlistment was the act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat., 590, which provided that an enlistment should be for a period of seven years. It was further provided, among other things, that at the end of four years of active service a soldier could be discharged and reenlisted or furloughed to the Regular Army Reserve. Section 7 of the act of May 18, 1917, 40 Stat., 81, states that all enlistments, including those in the Regular Army Reserve, which were in force on the date of the approval of the act, should continue in force during the emergency, unless sooner terminated. This provision operated as an inhibition to a discharge during the emergency not ordered by the Secretary of War under his general power to grant discharges in the interest of the Government. 24 Comp. Dec., 345.

As conditions precedent to the payment of the three months' extra pay under the act of May 11, 1908, the soldier must have been honorably discharged and reenlisted within three months from the

7920°-22—Vol. 1-47

date of discharge. The continuation of the enlistment after four years' service without being furloughed was in accordance with the requirements of the act of May 18, 1917, and the conditions do not entitle the claimant to three months' extra pay simply because four years' active service had been rendered under the endistment which had seven years to run.

Upon review of the matter no differences are found, and the settlement is sustained.

TRAVEL ALLOWANCE ON EXTENSION OF ENLISTMENT-MARINE

CORPS, ENLISTED MEN.

An enlisted man who is discharged after November 11, 1918, from any branch

of the Daval service for the purpose of reenlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps, or who extends his enlistment in the Navy or Marine Corps, is entitled, under section 6, act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 836, to travel allowance to his actual bona fide home or residence, or place of original muster into

the service, irrespective of the date of his enlistment. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, August 18, 1921:

By your direction on July 20, 1921, there was forwarded to this office by the Judge Advocate General of the Navy a letter from the Paymaster of the United States Marine Corps, wherein is requested decision of the following question:

Is a man who has enlisted since November 11, 1918, and who shall extend his enlistment for one, two, three, or four years, entitled to travel pay at five cents per mile from place where extension of enlistment becomes effective to his actual bona fide home or residence, or original muster into the service at his option?

This question has arisen in the consideration and application of the provisions of section 6 of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 836, which so far as they relate to travel pay are as follows:

That in case any enlisted man or enrolled man, who, since the 11th day of November, 1918, has been or hereafter shall be discharged from any branch or class of the naval service for the purpose of reenlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps or heretofore has extended or hereafter shall extend his enlistment therein, he shall be entitled to * * * travel pay as authorized in section 3 of the act * * approved February 28, 1919: * * *

Section 3 of the act of February 28, 1919, 40 Stat., 1203, amends the travel-pay section (126) of the act of June 3, 1916, to read as follows:

That an enlisted man honorably discharged from the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps since November eleventh, nineteen hundred and eighteen, or who may hereafter be honorably discharged, shall receive five cents per mile from the place of his discharge to his actual bona fide home or residence, or original muster into the service at his option : Provided, That for sea travel on discharge, transportation and subsistence only shall be furnished to enlisted men : Provided, That naval reservists duly enrolled who have been honorably released from active service since November eleventh, nineteen hundred and eighteen, or who may hereafter be honorably released from active service, shall be entitled likewise to receive mileage as aforesaid.

The paymaster in his letter referring to section 6 of the act of June 4, 1920, says:

The wording of the law in this case indicates that it is permanent legislation intended to apply to enlistments entered into after November 11, 1918, as well as to those entered into prior to that date, although the purpose of the law apparently was to put those men who extended war enlistments on an equality with those who were discharged from their war enlistments and who immediately reentered the service. It has been held that travel allowance can be paid for one extension only, but it does not appear that the Comptroller has decided the point raised herein.

In section 6, supra, provision is made for two classes of enlisted or enrolled men of the naval service, namely:

1. Any such man discharged after November 11, 1918, from any branch of the naval service for the purpose of reenlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps.

2. Any such man who, either prior to or after June 4, 1920, extends his enlistment in the Navy or Marine Corps.

Under the terms of said section 6 any such man of either class 1 or 2 is “entitled to travel pay as authorized in section 3" of the act of February 28, 1919, which is 5 cents per mile to one of the two places therein described, at his option.

An extension of an enlistment becomes effective at the time of the expiration of such enlistment, and by said section 6 the man who extends his enlistment is, when the extension becomes effective, placed on the same footing as to travel pay as the man discharged from any branch of the naval service for the purpose of reenlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps.

In other words, in so far as travel pay is concerned, the extension of an enlistment at expiration of term of such enlistment is equivalent to a discharge and reenlistment.

The specific question submitted is answered in the affirmative.

COMPENSATION-FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OFFICIALS.

The payment of the salary of a Federal reserve bank official, in charge of the

Government fiscal agency department, for any time after his death is a
gratuity and can not be considered a “necessary expense” payable from
the appropriation for expenses of loans, act of September 24, 1917, 40

Stat., 292.
Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 20, 1921:

The Secretary of the Treasury applied August 6, 1921, for review of settlement No. 12227, dated July 27, 1921, of the General Accounting Office, Treasury Department Division, whereby the amount of $1,733.73, was disallowed in voucher No. 22, account of J. L. Summers, disbursing clerk, Treasury Department, which amount covered reimbursement made by the said disbursing officer from the appropriation for “Expenses of loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended,” to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of payments made by it to the widow of Channing Rudd, controller of the Gov

ernment loan organization of the bank, of the equivalent of his salary from November 9 to December 31, 1920, he having died suddenly on November 8, 1920.

As to the payment and subsequent reimbursement the Secretary states:

The payment was made pursuant to a vote of the board of directors of the bank, continuing Mr. Rudd's salary to the end of the calendar year. This action is stated to have been in accordance with the policy of the bank, applicable to cases of its employees engaged in purely bank work.

The department, in line with its established policy to accord to the employees of the fiscal agency departments of Federal reserve banks, the same treatment accorded by the banks to their other employees, gave the item administrative approval after mature consideration, and it still feels that no modification of the approval should be made.

The appropriation for “ Expenses of loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended,” 40 Stat., 292, provides :

SEC. 10. That in order to pay all necessary expenses, including rent, connected with any operations under this Act, except under section twelve, a sum not exceeding one-fifth of one per centum of the amount of bonds and warsaving certificates and one-tenth of one per centum of the amount of certificates of indebtedness herein authorized is hereby appropriated, or as much thereof as may be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct : Provided. That in addition to the reports now required by law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, on the first Monday in December, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and annually thereafter, transmit to the Congress a detailed statement of all expenditures under this Act.

The authority of the Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents of the Government and to be reimbursed for their expenses in connection therewith is in section 15 of the Federal reserve act approved December 23, 1913, 38 Stat., 265. Decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury dated November 12, 1919.

The appropriation against which this item is sought to be charged is in broad terms, as is indicated by that part thereof providing for it “to be expended as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct.” Undoubtedly the reason therefor was because of the necessity, considering the importance of the subject matter, for obtaining prompt and effective results unfettered by matters as affecting the ordinary routine of Government business of less relative importance. But, however broad the powers lodged in the Secretary by virtue of this act may be, the exercise thereof, as affecting payments to be made, must be subject to other provisions of the act and existing law. The act provides an appropriation "in order to pay all necessary expenses.” An expense to be necessary must be authorized. The payment to the widow of this deceased bank employee was clearly a gratuity and apparently as such it was approved by the Secretary. Payments of gratuities as such are not authorized except in pursuance of express statutory enactment; therefore, the payment of the gratuity in this case, not being so authorized, must be held not to be a necessary expense of loans within the meaning of the act.

« ForrigeFortsett »