Page images
PDF
EPUB

of his active service was not served in the 11-year period immediately preceding his discharge.

The act of July 24, 1956, Ch. 683, 70 Stat. 626, provides—

That upon application by any former member of the Navy or Marine Corps

(1) who was discharged prior to August 10, 1946, under honorable conditions, and

(2) who, at the time of his discharge, had at least twenty years' active Federal service,

the Secretary of the Navy shall appoint such former member in the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve, as may be appropriate, in the rank held by him at the time of such discharge.

SEC. 2. Each person appointed to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve under the first section of this Act shall be transferred to the appropriate retired list (1) on the first day of the first calendar month beginning after such appointment, if his last discharge occurred ten or more years prior to the date of such appointment, and (2) in the case of individuals appointed under such section before the expiration of ten years from their last discharge, on the first day of the first calendar month, beginning after the expiration of ten years from the date of such discharge.

SEC. 3. Each former member transferred to a retired list under clauses (1) and (2) of section 2 shall receive retired pay at the annual rate of 21⁄2 per centum of the annual base and longevity pay he was receiving at the time of his last discharge, multiplied by the number of his years of active Federal service at such time (not to exceed thirty), and adjusted to reflect the percentage increases made since such discharge in the retired pay of persons retired from the Armed Forces prior to October 12, 1949.

SEC. 4. For the purposes of this Act, ell active service in the Army of the United States, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, or any component thereof, shall be deemed to be active Federal service.

SEC. 5. No pay shall accrue to the benefit of any person appointed under the provisions of this Act prior to the date such person is actually appointed under the provisions of this Act and in no event prior to the first day of the first month following enactment of this Act.

This act now appears as a note to 10 U.S.C. 6330 (1958 Ed.).

Subsection (e) of section 755, Title 14, U.S. Code, provides as follows:

Members of the Coast Guard Reserve shall be entitled to the same retirement benefits as prescribed by law for personnel of the Naval Reserve, and wherever any such law confers authority upon the Secretary of the Navy, similar authority shall be deemed given to the Secretary of the Treasury to be exercised with respect to the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is operating under the Treasury Department.

Section 2 of the act of August 10, 1946, Ch. 952, 60 Stat. 993, amended section 204 of the Naval Reserve Act of 1938, Ch. 690, 52 Stat. 1179, 34 U.S.C. 854c (1952 Ed.), to provide, among other things, for the transfer of certain enlisted members of the Navy to the Fleet Reserve upon the completion of at least 20 years' active Federal service (with retainer pay at the annual rate of 21⁄42 percent of the annual base and longevity pay they were receiving at the time of transfer multiplied by the number of years of active Federal service) and for the subsequent transfer of such members to the retired list of the Regular Navy upon the completion of 30 years' service. "Active Federal service" was there defined as including "all active service in the Army of the United States, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, or

any component thereof." In other words, under the provisions of the 1946 act enlisted members of the Regular Navy and the Regular Marine Corps were allowed credit for their active service performed in other services toward computation of time required for transfer to the Fleet Reserve or to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and for later entitlement to retired pay. At that time enlisted men of the Naval Reserve or the Marine Corps Reserve were not authorized to be transferred to the Fleet Reserve or the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. See the act of August 1, 1958, Pub. L. 85-583, 72 Stat. 480, 10 U.S.C. 6327.

The act of July 24, 1956, was intended to authorize the appointment to the Fleet Reserve or to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve and the subsequent retirement of only those former Regular Navy or Regular Marine Corps enlisted men who were discharged prior to August 10, 1946, under honorable conditions, and who had not then been eligible for transfer to the Fleet Reserve or to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve due to the fact that their 20 or more years of active service had not been entirely in the Navy or in the Marine Corps. See 39 Comp. Gen. 324 and 39 Comp. Gen. 890. Hence, it does not appear that a member of the Naval Reserve discharged prior to August 10, 1946, has any rights under the act of July 24, 1956. It is our view, therefore, that the retirement benefits provided in the 1956 act are not such as may be considered "retirement benefits as prescribed by law for personnel of the Naval Reserve" within the intent and meaning of the provisions of subsection (e) of section 755, Title 14, U.S. Code. Compare 26 Comp. Gen. 818 and 26 Comp. Gen. 912, 917. Moreover, transfer to the appropriate retired list under section 2 of the 1956 act, 34 U.S.C. 854c-2 (1952 Ed., Supp. V), can be accomplished only after appointment to the Fleet Reserve or to the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve as provided in section 1 of the act. It appears that there is in the Coast Guard no component comparable to the Fleet Reserve and the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve to which a former member of the Coast Guard might be appointed prior to transfer to the retired list.

Accordingly, it is concluded that, in the circumstances, Mr. Rogers may not properly be placed on the retired list of the Coast Guard under the provisions of the act of July 24, 1956.

[B-150983]

Transportation-Dependents-Military Personnel-Divorce, Separation, Etc.-Travel Completion

Where a member of the uniformed services en route to a new permanent duty station leaves his dependents at a place where divorce proceedings are begun and, a month later, after the member has gone alone to the new station, upon being granted a divorce decree requiring the member to contribute to the support of his minor children, his former wife and children travel to another location, the dependents' travel may be considered as being performed incident to the

change of station for payment of a dislocation allowance provided, that, where during travel there is a disruption of the martial status, evidence shows that the member supplied or paid for transportation beyond the place the disruption occurred; therefore, a travel allowance not to exceed the cost from the old to the new station, and a dislocation allowance are payable.

To D. M. Chism, Department of the Navy, July 12, 1963:

By fourth indorsement dated May 1, 1963, the Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee forwarded your letter dated February 22, 1963, and enclosures, requesting an advance decision as to the legality of payment to James H. Harris, SK2, 515 57 76, for dislocation allowance and travel allowance for his dependents from Virginia Beach, Virginia, to Los Angeles, California, incident to his permanent change of station. Your request has been assigned PDTATAC Control No. 63–12.

By orders prepared September 26, 1962, the member was transferred from the U.S. Fleet Anti-Air Warfare Training Center, Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, Virginia, to report not later than November 26, 1962, to the U.S.S. John W. Thomason (DD-760), San Diego, California. He was authorized 30 days' leave, 11 days' travel time and 4 days' proceed time, and travel by privately owned vehicle. In your letter it is stated that the member was detached from his duty station at Virginia Beach on October 12, 1962, and that, having routed his household effects to San Diego, he proceeded with his dependents toward that area with full intent to establish residence there. While on leave in Austin, Texas, he found it necessary to file for divorce on November 23, 1962. The member reported to his new station upon expiration of his leave on November 26, 1962, and you indicate that his wife and children left Austin on December 23 and arrived in Los Angeles on or about December 26. A copy of a judgment issued by the District Court of Travis County, Texas, 53d Judicial District, transmitted with your letter, shows that on December 24, 1962, the member was granted a decree of divorce from his wife and that the care, custody and control of their two minor children were awarded to his wife, subject to the right of the member to visit the children at reasonable times and under proper circumstances. The member was ordered to pay his wife the sum of $77.10 per month beginning February 1, 1963, toward the support and maintenance of the minor children until they shall attain the age of 18 years or until the further orders of the court.

The transportation of dependents incident to a member's permanent change of station is authorized under such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by the Secretaries concerned and the payment of a dislocation allowance to a member is authorized when dependents are authorized to move, and actually do move in connection with a permanent change of station. 37 U.S.C. 406 and 407. Paragraph 7000 of the Joint Travel Regulations provides that members of the uniformed

services are entitled to transportation of dependents at Government expense upon a permanent change of station for travel performed from the old station to the new permanent station or between points otherwise authorized in these regulations, except in specified instances. Paragraph 7057 of the regulations provides that a member in receipt of permanent change of station orders is entitled to transportation of dependents at Government expense from the old permanent station to other than the new permanent station not to exceed the cost from the old to the new station. Paragraph 7067 provides that entitlement to transportation of dependents is based on dependency status on the effective date of the change of station orders, provided the start of their travel is not delayed until the dependency status no longer exists. Paragraph 3003-1b1 provides that when leave or delay prior to reporting to the new station is authorized in the orders or the member is granted additional travel time to permit travel by a specific mode of transportation, the amount of such leave, delay, or additional travel time will be added to the date of relief (detachment) to determine the effective date of the orders. This is in accord with the long-established rule that no official travel is required under change of station orders until such time as the traveler is required to depart from his old station to reach his destination on the date designated in the orders.

Since the member began the divorce action in Austin, Texas, only 3 days before he was required to report at his new station on November 26, 1962, it is apparent that the travel of his dependents was commenced after the effective date of the orders of September 26, 1962, in the dependency status existing on such effective date. Inasmuch as the member's dependents had commenced their travel from Virginia Beach prior to the institution of the divorce proceedings with the intention of establishing a residence at San Diego, California, his new station, we believe that under the regulations the travel to Austin and from there to Los Angeles is to be viewed as having been performed incident to his permanent change of station. Also, under the regulations, the fact that the member's wife and children did not depart Austin with him and did not travel from there to his new station would not affect the member's right to the travel allowance for them if otherwise entitled. The purpose, however, of the law providing for a travel allowance for dependents is to at least partially reimburse the member for the expense of moving his dependents to a new residence incident to his changed duty assignment. Accordingly, we believe that in a case such as this, where during the course of the travel there has been a disruption of the marital status which relieves the member of his obligation to provide for one or more of his dependents, a showing that the member supplied such dependent or dependents with transporation beyond the point where they were when the disruption occurred,

or personally met the expenses of such transportation, should be required as a condition precedent to the payment of travel allowance for the transportation beyond that point. Subject to that limitation, the member is entitled to reimbursement for the travel of his dependents from Virginia Beach to Los Angeles, not to exceed the cost computed on the distance from Virginia Beach to San Diego. Since the member was not relieved of his obligation to support his minor children and they began and completed travel to the new residence incident to his permanent change of station, he is entitled under paragraph 9002 of the Joint Travel Regulations to payment of a dislocation allowance. The voucher and supporting papers are returned herewith, payment being authorized to the extent indicated above.

[B-151353]

Station Allowances-Military Personnel-Dependents-Evacuation Where an overseas military member acquires a wife-a foreign national-after the date of orders authorizing the emergency evacuation of the member to a safe haven point and the wife, pursuant to verbal orders authorizing her evacuation, travels to the safe haven point and then to another country because of the high cost of living at the safe haven point, the member may have an amendment to the travel orders issued after the wife's travel regarded as written confirmation of the verbal orders given prior to the travel so as to be entitled to emergency cost-of-living allowance while the wife was in the safe haven area; however, since both the orders and the amendment limited travel of evacuees to the safe haven point, the member is not entitled to the emergency cost-of-living allowance after the dependent for personal reasons left the safe haven point. To Sydney K. H. Miller, July 12, 1963:

Reference is made to letter of April 6, 1963, written by your wife in your behalf, requesting reconsideration of our settlement of May 20, 1959, which disallowed your claim for emergency cost-of-living allowance for the period September 11 through December 7, 1958, as yeoman 1st class, United States Navy.

By Authorization No. EM-Navy-7, dated July 14, 1958, the Foreign Service of the Department of State provided for your evacuation from Baghdad, Iraq, to a safe haven in Rome, Italy, with travel from Rome to be as directed. Emergency cost-of-living allowance was authorized in accordance with paragraph 4306-2 of the Joint Travel Regulations. At the time the evacuation authorization was issued, you had no family to be evacuated and this was noted on the authorization. By Authorization No. EM-Navy-7-A, dated January 28, 1959, the original authorization was amended to provide for the evacuation travel of your wife to Rome, Italy, effective September 11, 1958. Your wife's itinerary shows that she departed Baghdad, Iraq, September 11, 1958, arrived in Rome, Italy, the same day, departed Rome September 16, 1958, and arrived in London, England, September 17, 1958. She traveled that day to Sleaford, England, and stayed

« PreviousContinue »