Munford, who was then a bed patient in that hospital, regarding the provisions of the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act of 1953 and that about 4:45 p.m. (Central Standard Time), October 3, 1961, Major Munford made known to him his desire to elect Option 1 at one-half reduced retired pay. Captain Johnson advised him that since his office was closed for the day he would have the election form typed for signature and brought to him on the following morning. At about 8:30 a.m. on October 4, 1961, Major Munford signed the form (DA Form 1041), which apparently was brought to him by Captain Johnson, containing an election of Option 1 combined with Option 4 at one-half reduced retired pay in order to provide for an annuity to his wife under the act. At the same time Major Munford's father signed the form as a witness and Captain Johnson signed it as the personnel officer. It is stated that the election was posted by 9:30 a.m. of the same day in Major Munford's military personnel file and a copy thereof was mailed to The Adjutant General's Office.

Effective November 28, 1961, Major Munford, who had nearly 16 years of service for basic pay purposes, was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List under authority of 10 U.S.C. 1202 by reason of 100 percent physical disability. He died on December 4, 1961, and the Veterans Administration certified that his death was the result of disease incurred while on active duty.

On the same date that Major Munford signed the application, October 4, 1961, the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan, which amended the Uniformed Services Contingency Option Act of 1953, was enacted into law by Public Law 87-381, 75 Stat. 810, 10 U.S.C. 1431. Section 1446 as added by that amendatory act reads as follows:

(a) Notwithstanding section 1441 of this title, if a person(1) has made an election under this chapter; and

(2) is retired for physical disability before he completes 18 years of service for which he is entitled to credit in the computation of his basic pay; and thereafter dies, his beneficiaries are not entitled to the annuities provided under this chapter until they give proof to the department concerned that they are not eligible for benefits under chapter 11 or 13 of title 38. If the beneficiaries are not eligible for benefits under chapter 11 or 13 of title 38, the annuity shall begin on the first day of the month in which the death occurs.

(b) Whenever the beneficiaries on whose behalf the election was made are restricted, under subsection (a), from participating in the annuities provided under this chapter, the amount withheld from the elector's retired or retainer pay as a result of an election under this chapter shall be refunded to the beneficiaries, less the amount of any annuities paid under this chapter, and in either case without interest.

Thus, by enacting the new section 1446, the Congress restricted from participation in the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan the beneficiaries of all members electing under the plan who are retired for physical disability before completing 18 years of service for basic pay purposes and thereafter die of a service-connected disability. The law now permits participation by this group only where the member

dies of a nonservice-connected disability. Major Munford died of a service-connected disability.

In our decision of January 17, 1952, 31 Comp. Gen. 305, we said that

Generally, a statute is held to be effective from the beginning of the day of approval by the Chief Executive, particularly so where there is no evidence to show what hour of the day he approved the statute. United States v. Norton, 97 U.S. 164; Lapeyre v. United States, 17 Wall. 191; and Lehigh Carriage Company, et al. v. Stengel, et al., 95 F. 637. However, in certain cases, where there is evidence of the actual time of day that the Chief Executive signs a bill and where, in order to do substantial justice or to protect vested rights, the courts have looked on the actual time of the signing of a bill and have given effect to the same only from that, hour. Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U.S. 469; Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U.S. 381; Richardson's case (case No. 11777), 20 Federal Cases 699; and Bristol Mfg. Co. v. United States, 77 C. Cls. 182.

You express the view that the above decision furnishes a basis for paying Mrs. Mumford's claim if it can be established that Major Mumford's election at about 8:30 a.m. (Central Standard Time), October 4, 1961, was prior to the actual time the President signed the enrolled bill (Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan). However, for reasons hereinafter indicated, it appears that the time factor is not an element of major importance in this case.

The authority of the Congress to pass legislation is very broad. However, there are constitutional limitations and there is the requirement that vested rights may not be disturbed except in the exercise of legitimate police powers. 38 Comp. Gen. 103. Since the mere filing of an election of benefits under the Retired Serviceman's Family Protection Plan does not give rise to an immediate vested right—an election cannot become effective if a member dies before retirement and an election in a wife's favor creates only an inchoate right which is subject to the contingency that she survive her husband-the vested right restriction on new legislation is not a factor for consideration in this

case.

It is our view that Mrs. Munford's rights as a beneficiary depend on a determination of the intent of the savings provisions contained in section 8 of Public Law 87-381. That section states specifically who shall have the benefits authorized by the law as it existed prior to the date of enactment of the 1961 amendment. Those benefits are reserved for "any person who (1) made an election before the date of enactment of this Act which would be effective if he retired on the day before such date; and (2) hereafter retires for physical disability before completing 18 years service." In view of the fact that such law was enacted on October 4, 1961, an election made on that date was too late to come within such savings provisions. This is made doubly clear by the language referring to an election "which would be effective if he retired on the day before such date" of enactment. An election made by a member after he retires in the normal course

of events is not effective in any circumstances. An election made on October 4, 1961, by a member who retired on October 3, 1961, would be without legal effect. Thus, there can be no doubt that the Congress did not intend that the law as it existed prior to the 1961 amendment should be applied in the case of any person who had not made an election on or before October 3, 1961. Major Munford's election of October 4, 1961, does not meet that condition. While we do not consider the time the President signed the enrolled bill to be important in this case, it may be stated that there is no evidence as to the exact time of signing. The only evidence available is that the law was not mentioned by the Press Secretary to the President in his press briefing at 11:05 a.m. on October 4, 1961. Considering the fact that on October 4, 1961, Eastern Daylight Saving Time was in effect in Washington, D.C., and that Major Munford signed the election form at about 8:30 a.m., October 4, 1961, in a hospital at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, such signing took place when it was about 10:30 a.m. in Washington, D.C. It is understood that there is a time lag-in many cases of at least one half hour or more-between the time an enrolled bill is signed by the President and the time of the press release, due to (1) the delivery of the signed enrolled bill to the Records Office (The White House) for logging and preparation of a receipt for execution by the National Archives and Records Service, (2) the preparation in the Records Office of a stencil and mimeographed copies of a press release, and (3) the delivery of a mimeographed copy of the press release to the Press Secretary for the briefing conference. If more than one signed enrolled bill is involved, the delay is for a longer period. There were 46 bills which were signed by the President on October 4, 1961. In such circumstances, it may well be that the President signed the subject enrolled bill before 10:30 a.m., October 4, 1961, and that the law was not included in the 11:05 a.m., October 4, 1961, press briefing because of the delays attendant to the normal administrative processes preceding the delivery of the press release to the Press Secretary. There is no evidence which actually proves that the President signed the bill after 10:30 a.m.

It appearing that payment of the submitted voucher is not authorized, such voucher and the submitted copies of the papers and documents will be retained here.

[B-151877]

Travel Expenses-Transfers-Leave En Route-Illness, Etc., Effect Although an employee who takes sick while en route with his dependents to a new duty station would be entitled to mileage and per diem to the place of leave and per diem during the period of hospitalization not in excess of 14 days, the death of the employee at the place of leave before reporting to the new station

. terminates any rights to further transportation of his dependents and household effects so that, in the absence of any statute authorizing payment when employees die during official travel in the United States, the widow may not be reimbursed for travel beyond the place of death or for the expense of having her household effects returned from the new duty station.

Transportation-Remains-Death of Employee En Route to New

Station

An employee who dies at a place of leave en route to a new duty station may be regarded as in a travel status during the period of leave within the meaning of the act of July 8, 1940, 5 U.S.C. 103a, authorizing payment of expenses of preparing and transporting the remains of an employee who dies in a travel status to his home, official station or other appropriate place of interment, even though for travel reimbursement purposes the period of leave interrupted his travel status; therefore, the costs of preparation and transportation of the remains may be paid not to exceed the monetary limitations prescribed in Executive Order Nos. 8557 and 10209.

To the Secretary of the Army, August 5, 1963:

On June 21, 1963, the Office of the Under Secretary of the Army requested our decision concerning the entitlement of the widow of a deceased employee of the Department of the Army to mileage and per diem, reimbursement for transportation of household effects, and reimbursement for the cost of preparing and transporting the remains of the deceased employee under the facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth.

By travel order dated April 23, 1962, the employee was directed to travel to effect a permanent change of station from Raritan Arsenal, Metuchen, New Jersey, to Fort Wingate Army Depot, Gallup, New Mexico. He was authorized to travel by privately owned vehicle— accompanied by his wife and two sons-with mileage payable at the rate of 12 cents per mile but not to exceed the cost of transportation by common carrier. Authority for the transportation of his household effects from Metuchen to Gallup was included in the travel order. Also the employee was authorized two weeks leave en route to his new station. We understand from informal discussions with representatives of your Department that the employee had no sick or annual leave to his credit at the time of such transfer and that the leave so authorized was leave without pay which was intended to have been taken by the employee in Washington, D.C.

The employee's household effects were shipped from Metuchen on April 27, 1962, and arrived in Gallup on May 10, 1962. In the meantime, on May 9, the employee died in Washington, D.C., while in a leave without pay status.

Your letter does not state when the employee's illness began, when he left Metuchen or when he first arrived in Washington, D.C., the place where he intended to take leave. However, it does indicate that he was under a doctor's care in Washington, D.C., from April 30 to May 9, when he died. Also, we understand from informal discussions

with representatives of your Department that at the time the travel orders were issued the employee's illness was not anticipated. Under the circumstances, it appears that either prior to, at the time of, or shortly after arrival in Washington his illness must have begun. After death of the employee, the widow and her two sons traveled to their permanent home in Oxford, Alabama, and the widow directed shipment of the household effects to that point from Gallup, New Mexico, and paid the expenses of such shipment from her personal funds.

In paragraph 6 of your Department's letter it is stated "we are aware of no authority for reimbursement of the $624.50 paid by Mrs. Higgins for movement of the household goods from Gallup to Oxford, Alabama. It is also considered that upon submission of a travel itinerary and claim, Mrs. Higgins would be entitled to mileage and per diem for that portion of the travel from Metuchen, New Jersey to Washington, D.C., the point of leave, and for mileage at 12¢ per mile not to exceed the cost of common carrier transportation to Oxford, Alabama, for herself and her two sons since this would be less than the cost of transportation to Fort Wingate Army Depot, Gallup, New Mexico."

Your Under Secretary's Office requests a decision upon the following specific questions:

a. May reimbursement be effected for the travel and transportation expenses of the deceased employee, his dependents, and household goods as stated in paragraph 6 above? If the answer is in the negative, what expenses may be paid?

b. May reimbursement be effected for the preparation and transportation of remains of the deceased employee under the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4, Executive Order 8557, 6 September 1940 as amended?

We agree that the employee would have been entitled to mileage from Metuchen, New Jersey, to Washington, D.C., and to per diem in lieu of subsistence for such travel. In addition, if it be determined that the decedent's illness began prior to or approximately at the time of his arrival in Washington, D.C., his per diem entitlement would continue during the period of his incapacitation due to illness to the date of his death. See section 6.5 of the Standardized Government Travel Regulations providing for continuation of per diem for a period of not to exceed 14 days when an employee traveling on official business takes leave of absence of any kind because of being incapacitated due to illness or injury. On the other hand, the death of the employee in Washington terminated all rights to further transportation under the change of station orders. Section 1 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 73b-1, the statutory authority for the transportation of dependents incident to an employee's change of official station, makes no provision for completion by dependents of change of station travel when the