Therefore, Mrs. Jones became entitled to grade GS-3, step 8, $4,580 per annum, under the new act.

Under the regulations quoted in part herein, an employee's highest previous rate may be taken into consideration in fixing his salary rate upon reemployment, transfer, reassignment, promotion, repromotion or demotion. We find nothing in the regulations or in the 1962 pay act which authorizes consideration of the highest previous rate other than in connection with such personnel actions. Since Miss Anthony and Mrs. Jones were not transferred, reassigned, etc., as those terms are defined in section 25.102 of the Federal Employees Pay Regulations, the second personnel actions purporting to place them in step 10 of their grades were erroneous.

So far as pertinent here, the record shows that Mrs. Zirkle was promoted from grade GS-4(x) to GS-5 (g) on October 20, 1957. However, on July 10, 1960, she was reduced to GS-4 with a saved pay rate of $5,335, which she continued to receive for 2 years or until July 10, 1962. See 5 U.S.C. 1107 (a). Meanwhile, on October 16, 1960, she received a temporary appointment to grade GS-5 (g), in which she served until June 24, 1962. This temporary promotion did not interrupt the waiting period of 3 years then required for longevity step increases. See Public Law 86-769, approved September 13, 1960, 13 U.S.C. 24. Therefore, Mrs. Zirkle reached the second longevity step (y) of her permanent grade in October 1960 and the new waiting period of 156 weeks required to attain the third longevity step (now scheduled salary step 10) began and would not have been completed until October 1963. However, with the advancement to step (y) she could not be given a salary increase for the reason that the saved pay rate she was receiving was in excess of the rate prescribed by law for that step.

Mrs. Zirkle's entitlement to the saved pay rate of $5,335 (GS-5 (g)) terminated on July 10, 1962, and her salary rate was reduced at that time to $4,880 which was the legal rate for GS-4(y), the grade in which she was serving. On October 14, 1962, the effective date of the pay act of 1962 she was placed in step 10 of the grade. Mrs. Zirkle had not completed the required 156 weeks in the next lower step and we find nothing in the new pay act to support such action. Thereafter, on January 19, 1963, she was transferred and promoted to grade GS-7(2). Under the subsection of the act quoted herein, it is our view that on October 14 she should have been placed in step 9 at $5,230 and upon promotion she should have been given the equivalent of two step-increases or GS-7(1), $5,540 per annum. The salary rates of the employees should be adjusted accordingly. However, we have been informed that Miss Anthony transferred to the Civil Rights Commission on March 15, 1963.

Since we are without authority to waive recovery of the overpayments involved appropriate action should be taken by your Department to effect recovery thereof from Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Zirkle. Our Civil Accounting and Auditing Division will initiate the action to effect recovery from Miss Anthony.

[B-151845]

Subsistence-Per Diem-Military Personnel-Temporary DutyTime Limitation

A change of temporary duty orders, which assigned a group of Navy members to temporary duty for a short period while a vessel was being fitted out until its commissioning date, to terminate the temporary duty and make the assignment to the same place which was the home port of the vessel a permanent change of station when it was learned that the commissioning date had been rescheduled for more than 6 months later is proper under paragraph 3002-4 of the Navy Travel Instructions which provides with respect to secretarial approval for prolonged extensions of temporary duty beyond 6 months that the date for computing the 6 months will be from the date of the determination to order the extension rather than from the date of the previously rescheduled commissioning date and, therefore, per diem for temporary duty terminated on the date the members were notified of the permanent change of station.

To Ensign M. J. Hooley, Department of the Navy, August 1, 1963: Reference is made to your letter of January 3, 1963, submitting through administrative channels for an advance decision the claims of Lieutenant (jg) Paul T. Trageser, USNR, Ensign Edward E. Kemp, USN, and Normand O. Hamel, SKCA, USN, for per diem for the periods May 3, May 19 and May 3 to November 3, 1962, respectively, incident to duty at Boston Naval Shipyard, Boston, Massachusetts, in connection with the fitting out of the U.S.S. Albany. The request was assigned PDTATAC Control No. 63-13 and forwarded to us by fourth indorsement dated June 17, 1963, of the Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.

It is administratively reported that during the fall of 1961, the commissioning date of the U.S.S. Albany was established as May 25, 1962, and the Chief of Naval Personnel began issuing orders to members. In January 1962 members began reporting for temporary duty in connection with conversion and fitting out of the U.S.S. Albany and for duty on board when commissioned. On January 17, 1962, the announced commissioning date was changed from May 25 to June 30, 1962, and on April 21, 1962, the commissioning date was again rescheduled to November 1, 1962. Since on the last change the period from the date of determination of the new date to the expected date of commissioning was in excess of 6 months and as the home port of the U.S.S. Albany had been announced as Boston, a decision was made by the Bureau of Naval Personnel to modify all orders assigning

members to temporary duty in connection with the fitting out of the ship to specify "for duty."

Each of the claimants' original orders provided for temporary duty in connection with the fitting out of the U.S.S. Albany and duty on board when commissioned. Pursuant to their individual orders Mr. Trageser and Mr. Hamel reported to the Commander, Boston Naval Shipyard on March 26 and February 26, 1962, respectively, and were paid per diem until May 3, 1962, when they received notice that the nature of their assignment at the shipyard was changed from temporary duty to permanent duty in accordance with orders from the Bureau of Naval Personnel, and the payment of per diem was discontinued. Mr. Kemp did not report to the Commander, Boston Naval Shipyard, until May 18, 1962, under his orders of February 26, 1962, since he was directed to first attend a 6-week naval officer indoctrination course at Newport, Rhode Island, where on May 3, 1962, he was notified of the modification of his orders. Hence, he received no per diem at Boston in connection with the fitting out of the U.S.S. Albany. The claims are predicated on the provisions of paragraphs 3003–2c and 4206 of the Joint Travel Regulations and paragraph 3002–3 of the Navy Travel Instructions. It is contended, in substance, that under such provisions the complete period of duty at Boston prior to November 3, 1962, the date of actual commissioning of the U.S.S. Albany, was in fact temporary duty for which per diem is payable and that the changing of the assignment to regular duty by orders of the Bureau of Naval Personnel was contrary to the applicable law and regulations inasmuch as the scheduled commissioning date of November 1, 1962, did not exceed the previously scheduled date of June 30, 1962, by more than 6 months.

Paragraph 4206 of the Joint Travel Regulations promulgated by the Secretaries pursuant to the authority contained in 37 U.S.C. 404, authorizes the payment of a per diem allowance to a member when he is assigned to temporary duty in connection with fitting out or conversion of a vessel. Temporary or temporary additional duty assignments are specifically limited by the provisions of paragraph 3003–2 of the regulations to periods not in excess of 6 months except that such duty may be authorized or approved for longer periods by the Secretaries or their appropriate designees when unusual or emergency circumstances or the exigencies of the service appear to require assignments for periods of more than 6 months under conditions where it would be impracticable or uneconomical to effect a permanent change of station. It is further provided that such provisions do not preclude bona fide extensions that are required by a definite change or unforseen expansion in duty or by unforseen delays, even though such extensions when added to the originally authorized period total more than 6 months:

Paragraph 3002-3 of the Navy Travel Instructions is as follows: 3. APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED. In instances where a temporary assignment will be contemplated to be of less than 6 months' duration, but bona fide extensions will cause the actual duration to extend beyond 6 months, specific approval is not required unless any required extension is of itself contemplated to be in excess of 6 months. These extensions of duration, as discussed in the Joint Travel Regulations, par. 3003-2c, include such occurrences as slippages in a ship's construction schedule.

It appears that the claimants rely on the wording of the above-quoted paragraph for main support of their contentions as the duty extension required by rescheduling the commissioning date of the U.S.S. Albany to November 1, 1962, was not "of itself" in excess of 6 months beyond the previously scheduled date of June 30, 1962. While such provision does not require approval by the Secretary or his designee for extensions of less than 6 months, it seems apparent that such approval is contemplated if it is decided that a required extension will exceed 6 months, such period to be computed from the date of the decision to order the extension. Any doubt that might exist with respect to computing such period on that basis is clearly resolved by the provisions of subparagraph 4 of paragraph 3002 of the Navy Travel Instructions as follows:

4. MODIFICATION OF ORDERS REQUIRED. As indicated in subpar. 1, temporary duty orders are issued when the contemplated period will be 6 months or less. However, if at any time during a temporary assignment it is determined that an extension of six or more remaining months is necessary from the date of determination, either approval of the additional period or modification of orders to "duty" vice "temporary duty" is necessary. All such cases will be referred to the Chief of Naval Personnel or Commandant of the Marine Corps (Code DF), as appropriate, for resolution. [Italics supplied.]

It is clear that such provision requires the modification of temporary duty orders to permanent duty when, during a period of temporary duty, it is determined that the duty will be increased to more than 6 remaining months from the date of determination, unless otherwise approved by the Chief of Naval Personnel pursuant to the authority delegated to him by the Secretary of the Navy under the provisions of paragraph 3003-2 of the Joint Travel Regulations, supra.

The purpose of subparagraph 4 is to prevent temporary duty assignments from prospectively exceeding 6 months and it is consistent with the well-established principle that the applicable law and regulations authorize travel allowances only for periods members are in a travel status away from their designated posts of duty and do not contemplate the payment of per diem for duty whose foreseeable duration extends beyond reasonable temporary duty time limitations, such duty then being considered as performed, in fact, at the member's permanent duty station. See 36 Comp. Gen. 757. In our decision of June 22, 1959, 38 Comp. Gen. 853, it was stated that the statutory authority (now codified in 37 U.S.C. 404) while expressly providing for periods of absence from the designated posts of duty regardless of length of

time away from such duty posts, does not contemplate a continuation of payments for long periods of time. It was further observed that there must be some reasonable time limitation for temporary duty assignments, and that the time limitation of 6 months is a reasonable criterion to follow under ordinary circumstances.

The original basic orders assigning the claimants to temporary duty were issued on the assumption that the fitting out period of the U.S.S. Albany would not be of prolonged duration. Such assumption proved to be erroneous and in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3002-4 of the Navy Travel Instructions orders were issued terminating the temporary duty assignments when it was determined from the best information then available that more than 6 months would be required to ready the ship for commissioning. The present record does not indicate that the permanent changes of station were impracticable or uneconomical but on the contrary, in view of the fact that the homeport of the U.S.S. Albany had been announced as Boston, Massachusetts, the same location where the ship was being fitted out, it seems clear that the changes of station were in the best interests of the Government.

In such circumstances, it is concluded that the claimants' assignments to the Boston Naval Shipyard for temporary duty were properly terminated effective May 3, 1962, when they were notified that their orders were changed or modified to specify for "duty" at that location. Accordingly, no right to per diem accrued to the claimants for the duty performed at Boston during the periods claimed and the claims together with supporting papers will be retained here.

[B-151995]

Records Microfilm, Etc.-Expenses in Preparing for Government Use by Nonlitigants

The screening and processing of microfilm records of a bank in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum for documentary evidence to be used by the Government in an administrative or judicial proceeding not involving the bank, which processing is not only time consuming but requires special equipment to produce the copies, places a financial burden on the bank for the benefit of the Government and, therefore, reasonable expenses incident to the preparation of reproductions obtained from microfilm, which is admissible under 28 U.S.C. 1732(b), may be paid from appropriated funds of the agency conducting the investigation. To Arthur Kicsar, Securities and Exchange Commission, August 1, 1963:

Your letter of July 2, 1963, forwarded for our consideration a question concerning the payment of a claim presented by the First State Bank, Abilene, Texas in the amount of $48.50 for reimbursement of services rendered by the bank during an investigation conducted by the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Your office