CASES DECIDED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS April 1, 1951, to June 5, 1951, and other cases not heretofore published. Opinions are not ordinarily published until final judgment is rendered. Cases in which motions have been filed are not published until disposition of such motions. JOHN H. PETTY v. THE UNITED STATES Pay and allowances; Naval Reserve officer, without dependents, furnished inadequate quarters.-Where the plaintiff, a bachelor officer of the United States Naval Reserve, on duty at the Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi, Tex., was furnished inadequate quarters which he did not occupy; it is held that plaintiff is entitled to recover for rental allowance for an officer of his rank from April 2, 1941, to December 7, 1942. Same; definition of field duty.-Defendant's contention that plaintiff's claim is barred by the provisions of the statutes which deny rental allowance to officers without dependents while on "field duty" is not sustained. "Field duty," in military usage, does not necessarily refer to duty on land only but to any place on land, sea, or air apart from permanent cantonments or fortifications where military operations are being conducted. The term "field duty" connotes a mobile or operational status against actual or potential enemy forces as distinguished from a permanent station. The Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi, where plaintiff was stationed, is a permanent installation in every sense of the word, and the duties assigned plaintiff indicate that Corpus Christi was plaintiff's "permanent station" as that term is used within the armed forces. Army and Navy 13 (10) Same; flights on combat duty oversea from permanent station.— Whether or not plaintiff was available for flights over the Gulf of Mexico against enemy submersibles is not material. The Court of Claims has held (Lawrence v. United States, 117 C. Cls. 644) that a military aviator may fly oversea combat missions from a permanent base and yet be entitled to rental allowance. Army and Navy 13 (10) 1 Special Findings of Fact 119 C. Cls. Same; explicit provisions of statutes regulating rental allowance.— The statutes governing rental allowance payable to officers of the armed services are explicit (37 U. S. C. 106). Each commissioned officer below the rank of brigadier general, or its equivalent, on active duty or entitled to active-duty pay is entitled to rental allowance for quarters unless barred by the exceptions of paragraph 4, Section 6 of the 1922 Act, as amended. These exceptions are: (1) Officers without dependents on field or sea duty; (2) officers assigned at their permanent station the number of rooms provided by law; (3) before June 16, 1942, officers assigned a smaller number of rooms if certified to be adequate by proper authority; (4) after June 16, 1942, officers assigned a less number of rooms if not certified to be inadequate by proper authority. Plaintiff's claim does not fall within any of these exceptions. Army and Navy 13 (10) The Reporter's statement of the case: Mr. John H. Petty pro se. Mr. John R. Franklin, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General H. G. Morison, for the defendant. Mr. Currell Vance, Trial Commissioner. The court made special findings of fact as follows: 1. The plaintiff at the times concerned herein was a bachelor officer of the United States Naval Reserve, having no dependents and serving on active duty. On and after March 10, 1941, plaintiff held the rank of Lieutenant (senior grade) until June 15, 1942, when he was appointed a Lieutenant Commander, in which grade he continued until December 7, 1942, the last date involved in the claim. 2. Plaintiff reported for duty at the United States Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi, Texas, on March 10, 1941, and on that date the prospective commanding officer of that station endorsed upon his orders the following words: "There are no quarters available for assignment to you at this station." 3. On April 2, 1941, the following written orders were issued to the plaintiff by the Commanding Officer, United States Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas: 1. Adequate quarters comprising the number of rooms provided by law for your rank are not available to you at this station. 1 Special Findings of Fact 2. You are assigned one room with general bath in Bachelor Officer's Quarters, in accordance with Article 1819, paragraph 9, U. S. Navy Regulations. 4. During the period from March 10, 1941, through December 7, 1942, the plaintiff did not actually occupy any public quarters but rented and occupied privately owned quarters and during said period plaintiff was not assigned public quarters except as noted above. The room originally assigned to plaintiff was occupied by another officer for the period of at least June 16, 1941, through December 1941. On October 7, 1941, plaintiff applied for permission to maintain living quarters "ashore,” i. e., outside the confines of the Air Station. Permission was granted as of October 11, 1941. 5. Rental allowance in the amount of $718 was paid plaintiff during the period of April 2, 1941, through March 31, 1942, which amount was later deducted from his pay. No rental allowance was paid for the period April 2, 1942, through December 7, 1942, following which date the plaintiff's assignment to quarters was vacated. 6. Plaintiff continued on active duty at the Naval Training Station at Corpus Christi from December 8, 1942, to the first of August 1943. For this period, plaintiff and other officers stationed at said Naval Training Station received rental allowances. 7. Plaintiff's original duties following his assignment at Corpus Christi involved the instruction of cadets and officers in flying, through both ground school and flight instruction in the air, and he later became executive officer of a primary training squadron. Following July 1, 1942, plaintiff was assigned duties as station photographic officer, which also involved flying in addition to many ground duties. 8. At the beginning of the war the Navy Department activated the Eastern Sea Frontier Command, with headquarters in New York, and the Gulf Sea Frontier Command with headquarters first in Key West and later in Miami, Florida. The Sea Frontier Command was charged with the operations against the enemy in its respective area, which operations in this case were primarily concerned with enemy sub Special Findings of Fact 119 C. Cls. marines. Following June 1, 1942, the Gulf Sea Frontier included operational control of both the Seventh and Eighth Naval Districts, and the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station. The Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi was also located within the Southern Defense Command, an Army designation covering most of the Gulf of Mexico. There was an integration of the Gulf Sea Frontier and the Southern Defense Command by reason of cooperative agreements at the command level with respect to defense measures. 9. The Gulf Coast area was regarded at the command level not only as a potential, but also an actual theater of operations for naval and military forces. The possibility of interruption to coastal shipping along the eastern seaboard and within the Gulf of Mexico required protective measures, particularly with respect to oil and gasoline transportation from Gulf ports to the North, and sea-borne traffic from the West Coast through the Panama Canal to Eastern ports. There were enemy submarines present in the Gulf of Mexico, requiring the coordination of the armed services throughout the year 1942, so as to constitute a continuing threat to the Gulf of Mexico and its shores. In at least one instance, planes from Corpus Christi picked up survivors from a ship sunk off the Texas coast. Defensive measures constituted convoying of sea-borne traffic both by means of a protective "air-umbrella" and surface escort ships. Many of the planes so employed were on purely training flights from Naval and Army installations at Corpus Christi, Pensacola, and Eglin Field. The whole Gulf coast was blacked out in order to prevent shipping losses from enemy submarines. Civilian air patrols also operated in the area. The Naval Air Station experienced several aircraft warning alerts during the period. 10. Air patrols were ordered from and engaged in by the Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi, out over the Gulf in connection with submarine activity. The Commandant at that station was directed to utilize all flights, both training and otherwise, for this purpose. 11. Plaintiff's duties as photography officer were primarily administrative. Most of the activities of the photographic laboratory of the Station were consumed with identification 1 Special Findings of Fact pictures of all Station personnel, identification of all flight cadets that were used for records and publicity purposes, pictures of cadet graduations, athletics, all of which were taken for the purpose of publicity and morale. At irregular intervals aerial pictures of new construction for public works were taken for the purpose of building progress reports. Previously pictures were taken of airplane crashes for the use of boards of investigation, but during plaintiff's assignment this function was largely discontinued because it was concluded that many of them served no worth-while purpose. Instruction was given by the plaintiff at the photographic laboratory of the Station from time to time to cadets and officers for primary indoctrination prior to their being ordered to the Photography School at Pensacola, Florida. The photographic laboratory functioned on the whole as a housekeeping unit necessary for the training activities of the Station. 12. Harold Foster Fick, Captain, U. S. Navy, Retired, now residing in Coronado, California, was the Superintendent of Aviation Training at the U. S. Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas, from July 1940 until October 1942, and during the last six months of this period his duties were changed to include Chief of Staff for Commander of Intermediate Training based at Corpus Christi. Captain Fick's duties. put him in charge of all aviation training activities both in the air and on the ground, together with all other operations concerning aircraft. Captain Fick was plaintiff's immediate superior in command for purposes of fitness reports, control of performance of duty, granting of leave, etc., and he gave all orders to the plaintiff with the approval of the Commandant. Captain Fick testified that plaintiff's duties as primary flight instructor did not entail flights over the Gulf of Mexico and that the planes on which photographic officers made their flights were not ordinarily armed; that no personnel in Captain Fick's department or in the command at Corpus Christi had the opportunity of firing upon any enemy, nor were any persons or property attacked while he was there; that the planes which were used for all training flights over water in combination with observation for enemy submarines were |