category from reparation payments for damages. In a decision dated July 24, 1931 (A-37543), it was stated:

The rule is that where Government vessels under construction are required to be insured for the benefit of the United States to cover losses of fire and accident, the proceeds of the insurance when paid to the Government should be deposited in the United States Treasury to the credit of the appropriation under which the construction work was performed. In this connection see 20 Comp. Dec. 32.

The necessity for specific statutory authority to expend appropriated funds for insurance premiums primarily is based upon a long established policy of the Government to assume its own risks of loss-the theory being that the magnitude of its resources constitutes such practice more advantageous if only from the standpoint of economy of the administration of government. See 16 Comp. Gen. 453; 19 iď. 211; 21 id. 928. So that when the Congress chooses to deviate from that policy it would seem that the reasons and motives for such deviation may have considerable bearing in the solution of problems connected with the authority granted. House Report No. 2923 on the bill (H. R. 10412) which subsequently became the act of October 14, 1940, supra, explains such reasons and motives as follows:

Specific power to insure these properties is granted, because it is contemplated that many, if not all, of the buildings will be frame construction, thus constituting a special risk differing in its nature from the risk of usual govenmental building.

This explanation affords little, if any, assistance for present purposes. It is a matter of common knowledge that the amount of an insurance premium is usually commensurate with the risk covered by the policy; and, consequently, there would appear to be no more reason or necessity for the Government to insure against "special risks” than ordinary risks. Therefore, it would seem quite proper-as indicated in your letter-to inquire if the Congress did not have a more particular purpose in mind in providing the Administrator with authority to insure in said section 304.

Section 303 of the act, as amended, provides:

Moneys derived from rental or operation of property acquired or constructed under the provisions of this Act shall be returned to the appropriation authorized by this Act and shall be available for expenses of operation and maintenance including administrative expenses in connection therewith, and the unobligated balance of the moneys so deposited shall be covered into the Treasury at the end of each fiscal year as miscellaneous receipts.

Whether moneys received under insurance policies on such property properly may be deemed "moneys derived from rental or operation" of the property is open to question. However, the fact that income received from authorized dealings with the property is excepted from the requirement of section 3617, Revised Statutes, supra, and is made available for operation and maintenance expenses seems indicative of an intent on the part of the Congress that the program, once launched with an appropriation, should be carried on with the least possible

necessity for additional appropriations. In other words, that the project or program should be, insofar as possible, self-supporting or self-sustaining. Certainly, the proposed use of insurance proceeds to replace or repair damaged property would be in line with such expression of intent.

Where damage or loss occurs, and the insurer elects under an option expressly reserved in the policy to repair or replace such damage or loss, rather than to make payment direct to the Government in cash, the net effect of the insurance coverage is to conserve the available appropriation to the extent of the cost of such repairs or replacements, unless it be held that in the event of such election an amount equal to the value of the repairs or replacements must be paid from such appropriation into the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. See 20 Comp. Dec. 349, 2 Comp. Gen. 599; 8 id. 632. Cf. 3 Comp. Gen. 27. Where funds have been appropriated for the specific purpose of repairing or replacing certain property, a failure to transfer such an amount might be deemed an unauthorized augmentation of the appropriated funds. See 9 Comp. Dec. 174; 14 id. 87; 5 Comp. Gen. 928. However, that is not the instant case. While the Lanham Act expressly authorizes the repair of the property in question, it appears that funds are appropriated in a lump sum for the purpose of carrying out the whole program without regard to the particular phases thereof. See 21 Comp. Dec. 632. Cf. 8 Comp. Gen. 615. Hence, it would seem reasonable to attribute to the grant of authority to insure, the purpose of placing the program in a position of being as selfsustaining as possible.

Accordingly, there appears sound basis for concluding that it was the intent of the Congress that the proceeds of the insurance here in question might be used "to effect the purpose of the insurance"-namely the repair or replacement of the property damaged. However, it is not to be understood that such right is a necessary incidence of specific legislative authority to insure. For example, under the facts involved in a decision of this office dated February 6, 1925 (A-7119), it appeared that while the legislation (act of March 28, 1908, 35 Stat. 51) authorized the construction and operation of a sawmill, its terms contemplated that such operation should terminate and the mill be sold when certain described timber had been converted into lumber. This office held that under such circumstances no portion of the plant which had been destroyed by fire-some fifteen years after the enactment of the legislation-could be replaced, even though insurance proceeds were available for such work, unless the Congress specifically so directed. While authority to insure was not contained in said act, it would seem doubtful that the conclusion reached in the decision would have been different had authority to insure been granted,

Your letter describes three methods believed to be proper in providing for the replacement or repair of the property in question, which are specifically as follows:

1. Replacement or reconstruction by the insurer, the insurer letting all contracts and making all payments.

2. Replacement or reconstruction by the Government, the Government letting all contracts, either in its name or jointly with the insurer, but providing for all payments to be made by the insurer.

3. Replacement or reconstruction by the Government, the Government letting all contracts and making all payments from the proceeds of insurance received from the insurer and deposited in the Treasury in a special account to be available to the Administrator solely for such replacement or reconstruction.

In view of the conclusion above reached as to the availability of the insurance proceeds for such work, and in view of the broad authority vested in the Administrator by section 304 of the said Lanham Act, as amended, supra, this office is not required to object to any one of these methods. It is assumed, however, that—to the extent possible— the Administrator will select in each instance the method which appears best suited to the public interest.

(B-35133)

LEAVES OF ABSENCE-ANNUAL-TRANSFERS-PART TIME OR INTERMITTENT EMPLOYMENT INTERVENING BETWEEN PERMANENT FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT

Under section 6 of the Annual Leave Regulations, providing that employees who transfer from one permanent, emergency, or indefinite position within the purview of the annual leave act of March 14, 1936, to another position not within the purview of the act shall be credited with accrued leave upon retransfer or reappointment to a position within the act, an employee who transferred without break in service from a full time permanent position to a part time or intermittent position-a position not within the purview of the said act—is entitled to have recredited to him, upon reappointment to a full time permanent position, the unused annual leave earned in the former full time permanent position.

Comptroller General Warren to the Chairman, War Production Board, June 28, 1943:

I have your letter of June 11, 1943, as follows:

We have an employee who was appointed on a full-time basis under War Service Regulation V for an indefinite period, effective August 13, 1942. Effective March 3, 1943, he was placed on a part-time indefinite basis, and had to his credit approximately eleven days accrued annual leave. An action is now being taken to return him to full-time status. His services have been and will be continuous, and retirement deductions have been made during his part-time as well as his full-time status.

Under the circumstances, may the unused leave credits which were earned during the first period of full-time services be restored to the employee upon his being returned to full-time services?

Section 7 of the Annual Leave Act of March 14, 1936, 49 Stat. 1161, 1162, provides:

The leave of absence herein provided for shall be administered under such regulations as the President may prescribe, so as to obtain, so far as practicable, uniformity in the application of this Act.

Section 6 of the Annual Leave Regulations, Executive Order 8384,

dated March 29, 1940, issued pursuant to the above-quoted statute, provides in pertinent part:

An employee transferred or appointed without break in service from one permanent, emergency, or indefinite position within the purview of the said act of March 14, 1936, to another position or employment in the Federal service which is not within the purview of that act, shall be credited with all leave accumulated and accrued on the date of such transfer or appointment at such time as he may be subsequently retransferred or reappointed to a position within the purview of that act, provided such subsequent retransfer or reappointment is also without break in service. "Break in service" means separation from the Federal service for a period of one or more work days.

"Part-time or intermittent employees" are expressly excluded from the purview of the Annual Leave Act and Regulations by section 19 (f) (2) of the Regulations. See 15 Comp. Gen. 1058; 16 id. 442; 18 id. 457, 1001. Therefore, part-time or intermittent service may be regarded as a "position or employment in the Federal service which is not within the purview of that act" (quoting from section 6 of the Annual Leave Regulations, supra). Hence, if the involved employee properly is classed as a "part-time or intermittent employee," as distinguished from an "indefinite employee" (see definition of that term, section 1(e) of the Annual Leave Regulations), and if there is no break in service, the question presented is answered in the affirmative.

(B-34962)

RENTAL, ETC., ALLOWANCES-DEPENDENTS-ADOPTIVE PARENTS The words "father" and "mother" as used in section 4 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, defining the dependents on account of whom military, naval, etc., personnel may be paid increased rental, subsistence, etc., allowances, include only the natural parents of the person concerned, and, irrespective of whether the parties be related, do not include adoptive parents.

Assistant Comptroller General Yates to the Secretary of the Navy, June 29, 1943:

There has been received your letter of June 2, 1943, requesting decision as to whether a person who is in fact dependent upon an officer who is a son by legal adoption may be considered as a dependent mother or father under section 4 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 and, if so, whether the fact that the officer is related to the adoptive parent would affect the case.

Section 4 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, approved June 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 359, provides as follows:

The term "dependent" as used in the succeeding sections of this Act shall include at all times and in all places a lawful wife and unmarried children under twenty-one years of age. It shall also include the father or mother of the person concerned provided he or she is in fact dependent on such person for his or her chief support: Provided, That the term "children" shall be held to include stepchildren and adopted children when such stepchildren or adopted children are in fact dependent upon the person claiming dependency allowance.

540712m-43-74

So far as the statute defines the term "dependent" as including the "mother of the person concerned," it is identical with section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 627, which is as follows:

That the term "dependent" as used in the succeeding sections of this Act shall include at all times and in all places a lawful wife and unmarried children under twenty-one years of age. It shall also include the mother of the officer provided she is in fact dependent on him for her chief support.

The act of February 21, 1929, 45 Stat. 1254, extended the provisions of the above-quoted section of the act of June 10, 1922, to include stepchildren and adopted children. However, it is to be noted that no change or extension in meaning was given to the term "mother" as used in such act.

It consistently has been held by the accounting officers, both prior and subsequent to the amendment of the act of June 10, 1922, supra, that the term "mother" as used in the basic act had reference only to the "natural mother" of the person concerned. A-4662, August 27, 1924; A-21044, January 14, 1928; A-65294, September 19, 1935; A-75357, June 1, 1936; B-18028, September 16, 1941; B-19610, September 16, 1941; B-31843, January 29, 1943; and 21 Comp. Gen. 648. Cf. Jackson v. Alexiou (Ky), 56 A. L. R. 1345; Mount v. Tremont Lbr. Co. (La), 16 L. R. A. N. S. 199; and McKinney v. Minkler, 102 S. W. (2d) 273.

That such was the meaning intended by the Congress is supported by the enactment of the act of February 21, 1929, supra, amending the act of June 10, 1922, by specifically defining the term "dependents" to include stepchildren and adopted children. Had the Congress intended that the allowances be authorized in the case of a dependent mother other than a natural mother, it is only reasonable to assume that it would have provided so specifically in the act of June 10, 1922, or the amendment of February 21, 1929. Further support to such a view appears in the enactment of the act of June 16, 1942, supra, wherein it is provided that the term "children," under certain circumstances, includes stepchildren and adopted children. In this statute, likewise, no change or extension in meaning was given the term "mother," although benefits granted thereunder were extended to include allowances on account of a dependent father.

In this connection, it should be noted that when the Congress has intended that the words "parent," "mother," or "father" should include other than the natural parent, it has expressly so provided. Thus, the Servicemen's Dependents Allowance Act of 1942, approved June 23, 1942, 56 Stat. 385-which was before the Senate Military Affairs Committee at the time of the enactment of the act of June 16, 1942, supra— specifically defines the term "parent" to include other than the natural parent. Also, see the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of May 19, 1924, 43 Stat. 121, 130, and the National Service Life Insurance