Enlistment allowance and travel allowance as for discharge and reenlistment constitute no part of the pay and allowances provided by law for persons temporarily serving as officers. Therefore, regardless of whether the Navy Department considers it necessary or desirable to discharge and reenlist such persons in their permanent enlisted status while serving as temporary officers, such administrative action may not be recognized as legally authorizing payment of enlistment allowance or travel allowance. Accordingly, you are advised that there appears no basis on which to modify the conclusion in the decision of May 7, 1942, in that respect. However, in view of the color of authority for such payments in the first part of section 7 (a)—when read in conjunction with the language of the second proviso (saving clause) as it stood before the amendment of November 30, 1942-and the administrative interpretation of the statute in that regard, credit will be allowed in the accounts of the disbursing officers concerned for such payments, otherwise correct, made prior to the decision of May 7, 1942.

Your letter of July 24, 1942, continues as follows:

Should you adhere on reconsideration to the basic decision of May 7, 1942, clarification as to the status of enlisted men discharged and reenlisted while holding temporary warrants and commissions is desired. Specifically, your decision is requested on the following questions:

(a) If it is considered that the enlisted men holding temporary warrants and commissions under the act of July 24, 1941 (Public Law 188), were illegally discharged for the purpose of permitting them to reenlist and receive the gratuities incident to reenlistment, must the discharge and subsequent reenlistment of such men be considered null and void for pay purposes particularly so far as concerns payment of travel allowance and enlistment allowance, even though the discharge and reenlistment were made in good faith and in accordance with the administrative interpretation and application of the statute?

(b) If it is held, in answer to (a) above, that the enlisted men in question have been illegally discharged, since these enlisted men are now serving as temporary warrant or commissioned officers, are they legally entitled to receive the pay and allowances authorized by law for the grade or rank held by them in their temporary warrant or commissioned status?

In view of the express prohibition contained in the first proviso of section 7 (a) of the act of July 24, 1941, supra, it must be held, in answer to question (a), that the payment of travel allowance and enlistment allowance to temporary officers was unauthorized irrespective of whether their discharges and reenlistments as in their enlisted status were authorized.

Question (b) is answered in the affirmative irrespective of whether the discharges and reenlistments as in their enlisted status were authorized.

The concluding part of your letter of July 24, 1942, is as follows:

As above indicated, the decision of May 7, 1942, B-24219, held that under the act of December 13, 1941, the Secretary of the Navy has determined that all enlistments shall be extended and that he cannot provide that if the man voluntarily extends his enlistment or immediately reenlists he shall receive the allowances payable on discharge and reenlistment, but that if he does not voluntarily do so he shall be held to service.

The language in the act of December 13, 1941, supra, with respect to the right of the Secretary of the Navy to retain beyond the normal date of expiration of enlistment men who did not voluntarily extend their enlistments is permissive. Alnav 155-1941, as stated above, represents the administrative action taken by the Secretary of the Navy to carry out the provisions of the act of December 13, 1941, and the Congress was in a position, when it considered the bill S. 2025, which afterwards became the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, approved June 16, 1942 (Public Law No. 607-77th Congress), to take notice of such action in case it was contrary to the intent of Congress. The fact that action was taken to suspend that portion of the act of August 18, 1941, authorizing payment of double enlistment allowance and the inclusion in the cited act of June 16, 1942, section 10, of a provision for the payment of a single enlistment allowance during the war and for six months thereafter, is considered proof that discharge and reenlistment both prior and subsequent to June 16, 1942, was contemplated and authorized by the act of December 13, 1941.

In order to preclude the possibility of suspensions being raised in the accounts of disbursing officers who credited enlistment allowances to men discharged and reenlisted, or who extended their enlistments in accordance with Alnav 155-1941, from December 13, 1941, to June 16, 1942, your further decision is requested as to whether such payments will be passed for credit. Travel allowance and single enlistment allowance now authorized by law will be continued, in the case of men other than those temporarily warranted or commissioned, from June 16, 1942, under existing instructions.

The act of August 18, 1941, Public Law 215, 55 Stat. 629, provides, in pertinent part:

That all enlistments hereafter entered into may be extended by the Secretary of the Navy for such additional time as he may deem necessary in the public interest in time of war, or national emergency declared by the President, to exist: Provided further, That all men whose terms of enlistment are extended in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall continue during such extensions to be subject in all respects to the laws and regulations for the government of the Navy: And provided further, That men detained in service in accordance with this Act shall, unless they voluntarily extend their enlistments, be discharged not later than six months after the date of the termination of the war or national emergency.

Sec. 2. During war, or a national emergency declared by the President to exist, an enlistment allowance, equal in amount to that provided for enlisted men of the Marine Corps by section 9 of the Act approved June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 629; U. S. C., title 37, sec. 13), and by section 10 of that Act for enlisted men of the Navy and Coast Guard, and to be in addition to the enlistment allowance so provided, shall be paid to every honorably discharged enlisted man of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard who reenlists, within twenty-four hours after such discharge, on board the ship or at the station, Marine barracks, or other naval, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard activity from which he was last discharged.

It will be noted that section 1 of the act of August 18, 1941, provided for the involuntary extension of enlistments, as therein authorized, with respect only to enlistments entered into after the date of that act. The provisions of the act of December 13, 1941, Public Law 337, 55 Stat. 799, quoted in your letter, authorize extensions of enlistments in time of war without reference to the date that the contract of enlistment was entered into.

The Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 359, Public Law 607, was approved June 16, 1942, the provisions thereof becoming effective as of June 1, 1942, unless specifically therein otherwise provided. The fourth paragraph of section 10 of said act provides:

An enlistment allowance equal to $50, multiplied by the number of years served in the enlistment period from which he has last been discharged, shall

be paid to every honorably discharged enlisted man of the first three grades who reenlists within a period of three months from the date of his discharge, and an enlistment allowance of $25, multiplied by the number of years served in the enlistment period from which he has last been discharged, shall be paid to every honorably discharged enlisted man of the other grades who_reenlists within a period of three months from the date of his discharge: Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph shall not affect the provisions of the Act approved August 18, 1941 (Public Law 215, Seventy-seventh Congress): Provided further, That during the present war and for six months thereafter the provisions of section 2 of the Act of August 18, 1941 (Public Law 215, Seventy-seventh Congress) are hereby suspended.

The first sentence of the quoted paragraph makes provision for payment of a single enlistment allowance generally to honorably discharged enlisted men who reenlist within three months from the date of discharge. Section 2 of the act of August 18, 1941, supra, authorizes an additional enlistment allowance for reenlistments within 24 hours after honorable discharge but the second proviso of the quoted fourth paragraph of section 10 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 suspends "during the present war and for six months thereafter" the said provision in the act of August 18, 1941, for the payment of such additional enlistment allowance.

By a House amendment to S. 2025, 77th Congress, which became the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, it was proposed to amend the second proviso of paragraph 4, section 10, so as to provide:

That during the present war and for six months thereafter the provisions of this paragraph and all other laws (including said Public Law 215, 77th Congress) providing for enlistment allowances shall be suspended.

In conference the language of the second proviso was changed to read as finally enacted, and the Managers on the part of the House made the following statement with reference to this change:

Section 10 of the House amendment contained a provision suspending during the present war and the six months thereafter the provisions of all laws providing for payment of reenlistment allowances. The Senate bill did not contain such a provision. The conference agreement provides only for a suspension of section 2 (providing for double enlistment allowances to enlisted men of the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard who reenlist during the war) of the act of August 18, 1941. The conferees deemed it inadvisable to suspend the provisions of all laws providing for reenlistment allowances, since such action would hinder the Navy in its efforts to secure reenlistments by men whose terms of enlistment expire during the war and might result in the Navy's being left at the end of the war without adequate personnel to man the ships of the two-ocean Navy which the Congress has authorized.

The term "during the present war," used in the second proviso of the fourth paragraph of section 10, may not reasonably be interpreted as synonymous with the term "from the commencement of the present war." If that meaning had been intended, more specific language undoubtedly would have been used to accomplish that purpose-for example, language similar to that used in section 2 of the act, 56 Stat. 360, with reference to sea pay. The language in such proviso, when considered in connection with the last sentence of section 19, 56 Stat. 369, stipulating that "The provisions of this Act shall become effective as

of June 1, 1942," requires the conclusion that the suspension of the double enlistment allowance was intended to become effective on June 1, 1942, and that such suspension was to continue from that date, during the war and for six months thereafter. Moreover, the provision and its legislative history show that no cessation of discharges and voluntary reenlistments during the war was intended and sufficiently indicate that the act of December 13, 1941, authorizing the involuntary extension of enlistments for the war period did not intend to stop discharges and voluntary reenlistments (or voluntary extensions of enlistment)—for terms which might extend years beyond the waror the payment of enlistment allowances as then provided by law in such cases. It is concluded, therefore, with respect to reenlistments and voluntary extensions of enlistment effective prior to June 1, 1942, that the applicable statutes authorized payment of both the single and double enlistment allowance under section 10 of the act of June 10, 1922, and section 2 of the act of August 18, 1941, on the same basis as though the act of December 13, 1941, had not authorized the involuntary extension of enlistments in time of war. While the suspension of the additional or double enlistment allowance by the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 was made effective as of June 1, 1942, that act was not approved until June 16, 1942, and during the period June 1 to June 16, the existing statutes then provided for payment of both allowances. Accordingly, such payments as were actually made prior to the date of approval of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942 will be passed for credit in the accounts of the disbursing officers concerned to the extent such payments are otherwise correct. Enlisted men (not holding temporary appointments under the act of July 24, 1941) who voluntarily reenlisted or whose voluntary extensions became effective after the approval of the act of August 18, 1941, and prior to June 1, 1942, and who have not been paid enlistment allowance, are entitled to the double allowance, if the statutory conditions were met, and those who so reenlisted or extended their enlistments on or after June 1, 1942, are entitled to the single allowance pursuant to section 10 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942.

(B-30169)

NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVISTS—MILEAGE; TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS

Travel performed by an applicant for a commission in the Naval Reserve to accept the commission and to receive his active duty orders, which travel was not covered by the orders, was travel by a civilian not in the service of the United States and was not travel by an officer for which mileage is payable.

Where a Naval Reserve officer was shown his active duty orders at a place other than the place of his home-to which the orders were addressed and from which the orders required him to travel to a designated temporary stationand the orders were later delivered to him at another place en route to the temporary station, the travel to the temporary station from the place he was shown his orders prior to the time they were actually delivered to him is considered as travel in compliance with known written orders for which mileage is payable not in excess of the mileage which would have been payable had he received the orders at his home and traveled in strict accordance therewith.

In the absence of evidence that a Naval or Marine Corps reservist who is appointed or enlisted and immediately placed on active duty actually has his home at a place other than that shown by the official records to be his home, or "official residence," payment, otherwise proper, of the commercial cost of transportation of his dependents from such home of official record to his first permanent duty station will not be questioned, even though his home be at a point more distant than the place of acceptance of appointment or acceptance for enlistment. 21 Comp. Gen. 1010 will no longer be followed. Where a Naval Reserve appointee, whose orders directed him to take his physical examination at the place of his home and, if found physically qualified, to report to a designated place for active duty, did not execute the acceptance of his commission and oath of office until he was en route to his duty station, the officer may be regarded as having accepted his commission when he began travel from his home in compliance with his orders so as to entitle him to mileage for travel performed from his home to his first duty station. A Naval Reserve officer's right to payment of the commercial cost of transportation of his dependents to his first permanent duty station from his home when ordered to active duty is not affected by the fact that, while on temporary duty and prior to the time his dependents traveled from his home to his first permanent duty station, he changed his official address from his home to his first permanent duty station. Where a Naval Reserve officer's orders, directing him to perform temporary duty prior to reporting to a designated station for permanent duty, were in existence, and were not later revoked, at the time his dependents traveled from his home to his permanent duty station, the fact that the travel was commenced prior to the date of his detachment from temporary duty does not affect his right to be paid the commercial cost of transportation of his dependents.

Where a Naval Reserve officer's dependent wife traveled to the officer's first permanent duty station from a place other than the place which was his official home or residence of record at the time he was ordered to active duty and to which his orders were addressed, the officer is entitled to payment of the commercial cost of transportation of his dependent to his first permanent duty station from the place from which the travel was performed, not to exceed what such transportation would have cost from the said official residence or home of record.

Where an individual's appointment as a Naval Reserve officer and orders to active duty, addressed to him at his home, were received by him at the place designated in his orders as his first permanent duty station, to which place he and his dependent wife had previously traveled in anticipation of the appointment and orders, no travel on his part was necessary to comply with the orders, and, therefore, he is not entitled to mileage; nor is he entitled to payment of the commercial cost of transportation of his wife from his home to his first duty station as her travel was performed prior to his appointment and the issuance of his orders.

Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, December 19, 1942:

Reference is made to your letter of November 6, 1942, as follows:

There is transmitted herewith a letter from the Chief of Naval Personnel, Navy Department, dated October 29, 1942, with enclosure of five claims covering mileage and transportation for dependents in the cases of Lieutenant Newton W. Buerger, Lieutenant (j. g.) David C. Scott, Ensign Tyrus Bain, Ensign George F. Baughman, and Hoke S. Almond, Yeoman second class, all of the U. S. Naval Reserve.