The Comptroller General of the United States held in decision dated May 19, 1928 (7 Comp. Gen. 735) that the act of March 2, 1903, supra, was repealed as to officers appointed on and after July 1, 1922, by the 11th paragraph of the act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 625) which permitted such officers to count only active commissioned service for longevity pay purposes. This limitation was continued by the act of June 16, 1942 (Public Law 607-77th Congress), but has been removed by the amendatory act of December 2, 1942 (Public Law 785— 77th Congress). However, Sec. 15 of the act of June 16, 1942, which covers retired pay, provides for computation "as now authorized by law", including “increases for all active duty performed since retirement."

The question arises as to the method of computation of retired pay of officers of the Army of the United States who will be entitled to receive retired pay under the provisions of the above cited acts. It is probable that some of these officers will be found physically incapacitated on account of wounds received in battle. Your decision is therefore requested as to whether or not such officers, if retained on the rolls of the Officers' Reserve Corps, are entitled to additional credit for longevity under the act of March 2, 1903, supra.

You refer to decision of this office dated May 19, 1928, 7 Comp. Gen. 735, where, in considering the right of an officer retired on account of wounds received in battle to have his base or period pay computed on the basis of time on the retired list, it was concluded that the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 625, had the effect of repealing the provisions of the act of March 2, 1903, 32 Stat. 932 (quoted in your letter), as to officers appointed on and after July 1, 1922. Such conclusion was based on the express provision contained in section 1 of the said act of June 10, 1922, that:

For officers appointed on and after July 1, 1922, no service shall be counted for purposes of pay except active commissioned service under a Federal appointment and commissioned service in the National Guard when called out by order of the President.

Compare Leonard v. United States, 279 U. S. 40, particularly the Court's footnote, page 45.

Your letter appears to suggest the possibility that the provisions of the said act of March 2, 1903, now may be regarded as having been reinstated in view of the provisions of section 1 of the act of December 2, 1942, 56 Stat. 1037, which amended section 1 of the Pay Readjustment Act of June 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 359, so as to authorize, in effect, the crediting of inactive as well as active commissioned service in computing for pay purposes the service of officers paid under the provisions of that section. See 22 Comp. Gen. 664. However, assuming that such subsequent legislation otherwise could be viewed as resurrecting previously repealed provisions of the 1903 act, it seems clear that such amendment of section 1 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 did not amend or modify, or purport to amend or modify, the specific provisions of section 15 of the said Pay Readjustment Act, 56 Stat. 367, governing the computation of retired pay. As pointed out in your letter, said section 15 expressly provides that retired officers shall have their retired pay computed

as now authorized by law on the basis of pay provided in this Act, which pay shall include increases for all active duty performed since retirement * *. [Italics supplied.]

Such express provision in section 15 for counting all “active duty” performed since retirement clearly negatives any intention to authorize the counting of inactive service after retirement for the purpose of increasing the retired pay of such officers; and this was not changed by the amendment of section 1 by the said act of December 2, 1942, to authorize the counting of inactive as well as active service in computing the service of officers paid active duty pay under the provisions of section 1. Therefore, there would appear to be no basis, in any event, for holding that the amendment of December 2, 1942, had the effect of reinstating the provisions of the act of March 2, 1903, inconsistent with-and, hence, repealed by-section 1 of the act of June 10, 1922, as held in the said decision of May 19, 1928, 7 Comp. Gen. 735.

Moreover, even though the said provisions of the act of March 2, 1903, were determined now to be in effect, it would not necessarily follow that they would be applicable in the case of Reserve officers receiving retirement pay pursuant to the act of April 3, 1939, 53 Stat. 555, 557, cited in your letter. Retired pay, together with any longevity increase therein, is paid to retired officers of the Regular Army as current compensation or pay for their continued service as officers after retirement and only while they remain in the service (United States v. Tyler, 105 U. S. 244), whereas the "retirement pay" authorized by section 5 of the said act of April 3, 1939, for officers of the Army of the United States, other than officers of the Regular Army, who suffer disability while employed in the active military service of the Federal Government, is not conditioned on their remaining in the service but is more in the nature of a pension predicated on the disability, without regard to whether they remain in the service and without relation to any such subsequent service. Compare decision of August 16, 1943, B-35046, 23 Comp. Gen. 102. See, also, decision of July 21, 1939, B-4432. But, however that may be, this office would not be warranted in holding that the provisions of the said act of March 2, 1903, now are in effect with respect to any officer appointed on or after July 1, 1922.

Accordingly, the question submitted is answered in the negative.

(B-35392)

RENTAL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES-FEMALE PHYSICIANS IN MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF ARMY

Female physicians and surgeons in the medical departments of the Army and Navy appointed under authority of the act of April 16, 1943, may not be paid increased rental and subsistence allowances as for officers with dependents.

Assistant Comptroller General Yates to Col. Carl Witcher, U. S. Army, October 19, 1943:

Consideration has been given your letter of June 19, 1943 (reference SPFEF 016.3 (Craighill, Margaret D.)), requesting a decision as to whether you are authorized to make payment on a voucher submitted therewith stated in favor of Major Margaret D. Craighill, MC-AUS, covering subsistence and rental allowances as for an officer with dependents (mother) for the period May 28-31, 1943.

Major Craighill was appointed under the provisions of the act of April 16, 1943, 57 Stat. 65, as follows:

That hereafter during the present war and six months thereafter there shall be included in the Medical Departments of the Army and Navy such licensed female physicians and surgeons as the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy may consider necessary, whose qualifications, duties, and assignments shall be in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary and who shall be appointed and at his discretion removed by the Surgeon General of the Army or Navy, subject to the approval of the Secretary of War or the Secretary of the Navy. Those appointed shall be commissioned in the Army of the United States or the Naval Reserve, and shall receive the same pay and allowances and be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and benefits as members of the Officers' Reserve Corps of the Army and the Naval Reserve of the Navy with the same grade and length of service.

The Officers' Reserve Corps of the Army is assimilated to the Regular Army with respect to pay and allowances by section 37a of the National Defense Act, as added by section 32 of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat. 775, 776, 10 U. S. C. 361, which provides that reserve officers on active duty shall receive the same pay and allowances as officers of the Regular Army of the same grade and length of active service.

The right of women personnel serving in or with the military and Laval forces of the United States to receive allowances on account of dependents has been considered in several decisions of this office. See 22 Comp. Gen. 406; 22 id. 838; 22 id. 955; and decision of September 24, 1943, B-36497, 23 Comp. Gen. 216. In the decision of April 14, 1943, 22 Comp. Gen. 955 to which you refer in your letter, it was pointed out that the statutory definition of dependents found in section 4 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 361, which controls the payment of increased rental and subsistence allowances to officers on account of dependents, shows clearly that the Congress did not intend thereby to include the possible dependents of women members of the military and naval services, and, in the absence of any evidence in the legislative histories of the acts establishing the Women's Reserve in the Coast Guard Reserve and the Women's Reserve in the Naval Reserve that the Congress intended increased allowances on account of dependents to be paid to women members thereof, it was held, accordingly, that commissioned women members of such organizations, entitled to the same pay and allowances as male

officers of such services of the same rank and length of service, were entitled only to the same rental and subsistence allowances as such male officers, without dependents, were entitled to receive. There appears no essential or material difference between the situation there considered and the one here involved.

In section 3 of the act of July 1, 1943, Public Law 110, 57 Stat. 371, which act established the Women's Army Corps as a temporary component of the Army of the United States, the Congress provided that the commissioned officers of such corps shall consist of women appointed as officers in the Army of the United States under the provisions of the joint resolution of September 22, 1941, 55 Stat. 728, and that

* They and their dependents and beneficiaries shall have all of the rights, privileges, and benefits accorded in like cases to other persons under that Act, except where otherwise expressly provided.

The legislative history of the said act of July 1, 1943, shows beyond reasonable doubt that the Congress intended by the use of such language to authorize, inter alia, the payment of increased rental and subsistence allowances to commissioned officers of the Women's Army Corps on account of dependents to the extent that their situation in that respect might be regarded as analogous to that of male officers; and in decision of Sepember 24, 1943, B-36497, 23 Comp. Gen. 216, it was so held. However, it was held in decision of August 4, 1943, B-32874, that such provision for members of the Women's Army Corps thus made by the act of July 1, 1943, did not have the effect of authorizing similar payments to women members of other military organizations under the provisions of prior statutes apparently not contemplating or authorizing such payments when enacted.

The act of April 16, 1943, supra, authorizing the appointment of female physicians and surgeons in the medical departments of the Army and Navy contains no language warranting a determination that the Congress intended to grant them increased rental and subsistence allowances as for officers with dependents under sections 4, 5, and 6 of the said Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 with respect to dependents of male officers, nor is there any evidence found in the legislative history of the act which would support such a determination.

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated more fully in the said decision of April 14, 1943, 22 Comp. Gen. 955, respecting such allowances in the case of officers of the Women's Reserve in the Naval Reserve and the Women's Reserve in the Coast Guard Reserve, you are advised that payment on the submitted voucher is not authorized. The voucher will be retained in this office.

(B-37175)

TRAVELING EXPENSES-DIVISION OF COSTS-SHARING PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF FAMILY

Although an employee in an authorized travel status shares his Pullman berth with a member of his family, he may be allowed the full amount of the charge for the berth in view of the provisions of Budget Circular No. 401, effective November 15, 1942, which, in amending paragraph 13 (a) of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, omitted the provision that "If the accommodations are shared by the traveler * * he may be reimbursed only his proportionate share of the costs." The rule stated in 7 Comp. Gen. 450, is no longer in effect.

Comptroller General Warren to A. J. McCollum, Department of Agriculture, October 20, 1943:

Reference is made to your letter of September 20, 1943 (file 7-FG), as follows:

The attached reclaim voucher submitted by Mr. J. H. Walsh for the period July 26 to August 11, 1943, covers an amount suspended from the original claim, paid August 25, 1943, G. F. Allen's Voucher No. 457050, Symbol 78-604. In the performance of travel during the stated period, Mr. Walsh was accompanied by his eight year old son who shared Pullman accommodations procured with Government transportation requests. The suspension was based on 7 Comp. Gen. 450 with respect to reimbursement of travelers for the cost of Pullman accommodations shared by other individuals. In reclaiming the amount withheld, Mr. Walsh refers to the wording of Paragraph 13 (a), S. G. T. R., Revised effective November 15, 1942, and points to the fact that the revision does not contain the requirement that the traveler state whether he shared accommodations with another person, nor does it state that he may be reimbursed for only his proportionate share of the cost of the accommodations used. The question specifically raised is whether under Paragraph 13 (a), S. G. T. R, as revised, the traveler may be reimbursed for the total cost of accommodations used, not to exceed the cost of a standard lower berth, irrespective of the fact that they were shared with another person, or whether he still may be reimbursed for only his proportionate share of the cost, disregarding the omission of specific wording to that effect in the revised travel regulations.

Your decision as to whether this voucher may be certified for payment is solicited.

The decision of January 30, 1928, 7 Comp. Gen. 450, to which you refer, stated the following rule (quoting from the syllabus):

Where an employee in an authorized travel status is accompanied by his wife and minor children, the division of joint transportation expenses in order to determine the proportion properly reimbursable to the employee will be made on the following basis: Children under 5 years of age will not be considered in apportioning the expenses; children 5 years of age and under 12 years will be considered as costing one-half as much as an adult; and children 12 years of age or over will be considered on the same basis as an adult. 7 Comp. Gen. 220, modified.

Section 13 (a) of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations applicable up to November 15, 1942, provided:

Accommodations on trains and steamers.—The following accommodations will be allowed on trains and steamers (see par. 57):

(a) One standard lower berth for each person and lowest rate first-class stateroom accommodations on steamers when same is not included in cost of passage ticket. If the accommodations are shared by the traveler, the fact should be stated in the expense account and he may be reimbursed only his proportionate share of the costs. (See pars. 13 (d), 95.)