« PreviousContinue »
pendents during a short period of active duty in connection with training is not within the reasonable intendment of the law (the officer being furnished with such quarters as are necessary for the duty to which assigned) the payment of a rental allowance in lieu of quarters not contemplated to be furnished in kind would not be authorized.
You are accordingly informed that Major Hazeltine is not entitled to rental allowance during the period he was on active duty at Fort Hancock, N. J., for purposes of training. See in this connection decision of September 29, 1922, to Capt. Melvin Jones, Finance Department, in re rental allowance to Capt. James E. Kemph, Infantry Officers' Reserve Corps.
RENTAL ALLOWANCE TO MEMBERS OF OFFICERS' RESERVE CORPS ON TRAINING AND INSTRUCTION DUTY AT TRAINING CAMPS.
Duty of members of the Officers' Reserve Corps at training camps for training
purposes, or as instructors at a civilian training camp, is not " field duty" or temporary duty away from permanent station within the meaning of section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 628, and members of such corps upon such duty for whom public quarters are available for themselves
are not entitled to a rental allowance. Comptroller General McCarl to Capt. Melvin Jones, United States Army, September 29, 1922:
There has been received your communication dated September 13, 1922, with inclosed voucher for $117.33, requesting decision as to whether you are authorized to make payment thereof to Capt. James E. Kemph, Infantry Officers' Reserve Corps, as rental allowance for the period from July 12 to August 25, 1922, when he was on active duty at Camp Meade, Md., pursuant to paragraph 18, Special Orders, No. 38, headquarters Eightieth Division, dated July 5, 1922, for 15 days' training and for 30 days' duty as an instructor in connection with a civilian military training camp.
A cot in the barracks building was furnished for the personal use of Captain Kemph, and the commanding officer of the Third Corps Area Training Center has certified that there were no suitable public quarters available at Camp Meade during the period from July 12 to August 25, 1922, for the occupancy of his dependents.
Under the provisions of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 776, to the extent provided for by appropriations and in time of peace, a reserve officer may be ordered to active duty at any time for any period with his consent, and without his consent for a period of 15 days. The act of June 30, 1922, 42 Stat., 723, making appropriations for the military and nonmilitary activities of the War Department for the fiscal year 1922, appropriated $1,000,000 for the pay and allowance of the officers of the Reserve Corps, with the provision that
No portion of this appropriation shall be expended for the pay of a reserve officer on active duty for a longer period than fifteen days, except such as may be detailed for duty with the War Department General Staff under section 3a and section 5 (b) of the Army Reorganization Act approved June 4, 1920, or who may be detailed for courses of instruction at the general or special service schools of the Army, or who may be detailed for duty as instructors at civilian military training camps appropriated for in this Act, or who may be detailed for duty with tactical units of the Air Service, as provided in Section 37a of the Army Reorganization Act approved June 4, 1920, or not to exceed three reserve officers in the Judge Advocate General's Department, or except one officer of the Medical Reserve Corps.
When a reserve officer is ordered to active duty section 14 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 631, provides that he shall be entitled “ while on active duty” to receive the allowances therein specified in sections 5 and 6 of the act for officers of the regular service.
Section 5 prescribes certain money allowances for subsistence.
Section 6 provides that each commissioned officer on the active list, or on active duty, below the grade of brigadier general or its equivalent, if public quarters are not available, shall be entitled at all times, in addition to his pay, to a money allowance for rental of quarters. The number of rooms for which an officer is entitled to rental allowance is fixed for the first to the sixth pay periods, inclusive, with a further provision that,
The rental allowance shall accrue while the officer is on field or sea duty, temporary duty away from his permanent station, in hospital, on leave of absence or on sick leave, regardless of any shelter that may be furnished him for his personal use, if his dependent or dependents are not occupying public quarters during such period.
The reserve officer was on duty at Camp Meade for 15 days for the purpose of training, and, with his consent, for 30 days additional as an instructor in connection with the civilian military training camp, both of which duties were expressly authorized by the terms of the current appropriation act. He was furnished with personal shelter, but public quarters were not available for assignment to his dependents.
The question presented resolves itself into whether this reserve officer was on temporary duty away from his permanent station or on field duty during the period he was on active duty at the training camp.
The contention has been made by the officer that his home was his permanent station, and that while at the training camp he was at a temporary station away from his permanent station within the meaning of the above-quoted statute and is entitled to the rental allowance for his dependents regardless of the personal shelter furnished him in the barracks building. The contention must be rejected for the
reason that a station, in the military acceptation of the term, is a place where some military duty is, or may be, performed and a home is not such a station. United States v. Phisterer, 94 U. S., 222; 27 Comp. Dec., 61. Therefore he was not on duty at a temporary station away from a permanent station.
War Department Finance Memorandum No. 45 of July 7, 1922, provides
Rental and subsistence allowance for reserve officers on active duty for 15-day training period.-1. Section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, provides for the payment of a rental allowance to officers while “ on field or sea duty, temporary duty away from his permanent station, in hospital, on leave of absence or on sick leave.” A reserve officer called to active duty for a fifteen day training period does not come within any of the classes mentioned, and is not, therefore, entitled to the rental allowance if public quarters of any kind are furnished. See Circular No. 122, War Department, 1922.
2. Section 5 of the act of June 10, 1922, provides that “ each commissioned officer on the active list or on active duty below the grade of brigadier general
shall be entitled at all times, in addition to his pay, to a money allowance for subsistence," and section 14 states that reserve officers while on active duty shall receive the allowance prescribed in section 5 for officers of the regular service. Therefore, the subsistence allowance is payable to reserve officers wbile on active duty for the 15-day training period.
KENZIE W. WALKER,
Chief of Finance. War Department Circular No. 122 of June 14, 1922, is as follows: Hereafter service at training camps is not to be regarded as duty in the field in so far as computation of quarters for dependents is concerned. (A. G. 245.81.) (5–15–22.) By order of the Secretary of War:
JOHN J. PERSHING,
General of the Armies, Chief of Staff. Odicial: ROBERT C. DAVIS,
Acting The Adjutant General. It is apparent, and appears to be conceded, that a reserve officer on duty either as a student or as an instructor in a summer training camp is not on duty in the field. While field conditions may be simulated, such simulation is not field service within the meaning of the law. See Hines v. Mikell, 259 Fed. Rep., 28.
When on active duty for the purpose of receiving instructions or for the purpose of giving instructions in field exercises at a temporary cantonment where quarters are available for reserve officers they are not entitled to a rental allowance for their dependents.
Payment of the voucher, herewith returned, is not authorized. See decision of September 29, 1922, to the Secretary of War, re rental allowance to Maj. R. H. Hazeltine, Coast Artillery, Officers' Reservo Corps.
LAUNDRY-DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE OF, OVER WEEKLY
Subject to the statutory maximum of $5 per day for expense of subsistence,
including laundry, it is within the discretion of the head of a department to provide by regulation for apportionment of the expense of laundry incurred by employees performing official travel on an actual expense basis by dividing the expense equally among the several days of a weekly period, or by dividing it among said days according as the amount of other sub
sistence expenses on the respective days is less than $5. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of Agriculture, September 30, 1922:
I have your letter of August 29, 1922, requesting decision as to your authority in the matter of promulgating a regulation dealing with the distribution of laundry expense over the several days of a weekly period covered by a weekly allowance for such expense.
You cite the decision of this office of February 3, 1922, to the Secretary of the Treasury, 1 Comp. Gen., 403, upholding a proposed regulation of the Treasury Department that fixes a maximum weekly allowance of expense of laundry and of cleaning and pressing clothes and provides that such expense shall be entered in the account as of the date of payment and will be held to be distributable among the preceding days of the period and allowed to the extent that the expense for subsistence, exclusive of laundering, cleaning, and pressing clothes on such days is less than $5.00.
The decision changed the former rule that expense of laundry should be charged against the subsistence maximum of the day on which the laundry is returned and ruled that laundry expense is in fact an accumulated expense, and that the regulation might properly provide a practical procedure for distribution of the weekly allowance over the several days of the weekly period, that the matter was one to be determined by regulation, and that there was no legal objection to the proposed regulation in this respect.
It is within your discretion to fix by regulation the method of distribution of the expense of laundry over the several days of a weekly period, provided that the method of distribution is such that the subsistence expense including the laundry charge of no single day in the period shall exceed the statutory maximum of $5.
You suggest three alternative methods of distributing the “ weekly allowance " over the several days of the weekly period; first, in equal installments; second, in varying amounts not to exceed on any day an amount which, with other expenses of subsistence, would not exceed $5; third, an allowance against any day on which other subsistence expenses plus laundry expense would not exceed $5.
If the allowance is distributed over the several days of a weekly period it ceases to be a weekly allowance and becomes a daily allowance. I understand, however, that you intend to fix a maximum weekly allowance of laundry expense and provide in the regulation the method by which the expense of laundry incurred by the traveler shall be apportioned to the several days in the weekly period.
The maximum allowance being fixed for the week and not for the day, expense for the week may be paid to the extent of the maximum, provided only that the subsistence expense of no day within the period, including the apportionment for expense of laundry, exceeds $5. It is within your discretion to so frame your regulation as to apportion the expense equally among the several days of the weekly period, or to follow the Treasury regulation which apportions it according as the amount of other subsistence expense on any day is less than $5.
DOUBLE COMPENSATION–PER DIEM EMPLOYEES ATTENDING
NATIONAL GUARD ENCAMPMENTS.
The act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 203, granting leave of absence without loss of
pay, time, or efficiency rating to all officers and employees of the United States and of the District of Columbia who are members of the National Guard, on all days engaged in field or coast defense training ordered or authorized by said act, authorizes such leave with pay to per-diem employees whose services are engaged for a period of time, however temporary or indefinite, in addition to such other leave with pay as might properly be granted to them; but does not authorize such leave to employees whose services are engaged by the day, from day to day, such employees being in the service of the Government only from the beginning to the end of each
working day. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, September 30, 1922:
There has been submitted by your authority request of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated September 16, 1922, for a decision, in advance of payment, as to whether Leo C. Allen, a civi. lian employee of the Engineer Department at Large, on a temporary per-diem basis, may be paid at his regular rate of compensation as a civilian employee for the period from June 14 to June 29, 1922, during which time he was engaged in training service as a member of the National Guard of the State of Oregon.
The submission refers to decision of December 14, 1921, 4 MS. Comp. Gen., 719, that,
The right of per-diem employees to pay ordinarily depends on the rendition of service, in the absence of any statutory provision or provision in the contract of employment.
In that decision the question of the right of per-diem employees to leave of absence with pay was not under consideration. It was, however, fully considered in my decision of February 2, 1922, 6 MS. Comp. Gen., 140, citing 19 Comp Dec., 661.
I regret that there is not before me sufficient evidence, including voucher properly signed and approved, to authorize and enable me