Columbia, pursuant to the conclusion reached by the Commission in the referred-to opinion, as follows:

Weighing all of the facts in this particular case, it is the conclusion of the Commission that the Presidential appointments of Mr. Hazen in the years 1937 and 1940 had the legal effect of continuing him in the service in compliance with the requirements of the act of June 30, 1932. Refund of all of the deductions made from his salary, plus the appropriate interest, is therefore ordered.

Section 204, of the act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 404, the act referred to in the opinion, supra, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

On and after July 1, 1932, no person rendering civilian service in any branch or service of the United States Government or the municipal government of the District of Columbia who shall have reached the retirement age prescribed for automatic separation from the service, applicable to such person, shall be continued in such service, notwithstanding any provision of law or regulation to the contrary: Provided, That the President may, by Executive order, exempt from the provisions of this section any person when, in his judgment, the public interest so requires:

*

*

This office has rendered no decision which would control the action of the United States Civil Service Commission in this case. The decisions of this office which hold that service beyond retirement age without a proper retention by competent authority either under section 204 of the act of June 30, 1932, supra, or other statute, is de facto, and for that reason retirement deductions are not refundable, have not involved a case such as here presented where the President not long prior to the time an officer subject to the Retirement Act reached 70 years of age and again after he reached 70 years of age took executive action to retain the officer in the service by means of a Presidential appointment, which was confirmed by the Senate, for a definite term of years. Compare 3 Comp. Gen. 823; 4 id. 43; 5 id. 70; 6 id. 263. Also, see 6 Comp. Gen. 71; 14 id. 791; id. 865; 15 id. 55; 37 Op. Atty. Gen. 393. The Commission has concluded that the President's action in this case satisfied the provisions of section 204 of the act of June 30, 1932, supra, on the basis that no particular form of Executive order or action was required in the application of said act. I am inclined to agree with the Commission's view of the matter. Accordingly, you are advised that your certificate on the voucher based upon the conclusion reached by the United States Civil Service Commission in this matter will not be questioned by this office.

The file in the case is returned herewith, as requested.

(B-27414)

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES-LEAVE PAYMENTS WHILE ON MILITARY DUTY

The term "employees of the United States Government" as used in the act of August 1, 1941, as amended, authorizing payment for accumulated or current accrued leave concurrently with active military duty, includes officers, as well as employees, who are entitled to annual leave with pay.

A United States attorney who resigned his office to enter on active military duty under a commission in the Army is entitled under the act of August 1, 1941, as amended, to be paid for his accumulated and current accrued annual leave concurrently with receipt of military pay if there was no break in service between the effective date of his resignation and actual entrance on military duty. The act of August 1, 1941, as amended, conferring on civilian officers the right to be paid for accumulated or current accrued annual leave concurrently with receipt of military pay, requires an exception to the general rule that only one person may be paid the salary of an office for the same period, so that a United States attorney who entered the military service immediately upon ceasing to perform duty in his civilian office is entitled to payment for all annual leave to his credit even though his successor in office was appointed and entered upon duty prior to expiration of the leave period.

Comptroller General Warren to the Attorney General, July 24, 1942:

I have your letter of July 13, 1942, ref. A3-5, as follows:

One of the United States attorneys has resigned his position to accept a commission in the United States Army. Questions relative to leave and reemployment have arisen. Your answers to the following hypothetical questions are requested, with particular reference to offices like those of United States attorneys: 1. If the United States attorney resigned effective April 16, 1942, to enter the military service and if his resignation was accepted by the President effective as of that day, is the United States attorney entitled to payment for accumulated and accrued annual leave pursuant to the act of April 7, 1942, Public Law 517, which act makes the payment of compensation for leave obligatory? 2. If your answer to the foregoing is in the affirmative, may he be paid for his annual leave through the close of business June 4, a successor having been appointed and entered on duty June 1?

3. If the answer to number 2 is in the negative, to the close of what day may he be paid for his leave, assuming that there stood to his credit sufficient leave to carry him from April 17 to June 4, inclusive?

4. Does the United States attorney have any reemployment rights in the circumstances under the act of August 18, 1941, Public Law 213?

5. In the event the resignation of the United States attorney was not for the purpose of entering the armed forces, would your answers to numbers 1, 2, and 3 be different?

In connection with the foregoing, to what extent are the principles followed in 4 Comp. Dec. 601 to be observed, particularly in view of the decision in 19 Comp. Gen. 501?

This office is not required or authorized by law to answer hypothetical questions. However, since it is stated in the submission that one United States attorney has resigned to accept a commission in the Army, the question presented with reference to his leave will be answered on the assumption that his resignation was to be effective April 16, 1942, that he immediately entered the military service and that his successor entered upon duty June 1, 1942.

The act of August 1, 1941, 55 Stat. 616, as amended by the act of April 7, 1942, Public Law 517, 56 Stat. 200, provides, as follows:

That employees of the United States Government, its Territories or possessions, or the District of Columbia (including employees of any corporation created under authority of an act of Congress which is either wholly controlled or wholly owned by the United States Government, or any corporation, all the stock of which is owned or controlled by the United States Government, or any department, agency, or establishment thereof, whether or not the employees thereof are paid from funds appropriated by Congress), who, subsequent to

May 1, 1940, shall have entered upon active military or naval service in the land or naval forces of the United States by voluntary enlistment or otherwise, shall be entitled to receive, in addition to their military pay, compensation in their civilian positions covering their accumulated or current accrued leave, or to elect to have such leave remain to their credit until their return from active military or naval service.

The term "employees of the United States Government" as used in the above-quoted statute includes officers who are entitled to annual leave of absence with pay. See 21 Comp. Gen. 237; id. 422. Cf. 21 id. 191.

In decision of July 20, 1942, B-27048, 22 Comp. Gen. 47, to the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, it was stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

Under the act of August 1, 1941, as amended by the act of April 7, 1942, Public 517, quoted in the second paragraph of your letter, an employee is entitled to be paid for the accumulated and/or current accrued annual leave to his credit when he enters the military or naval service, regardless of the nature of the separation from his civilian position, whether by resignaton, administrative separation, or furlough, and regardless of the nature of his entry into the military or naval service, whether by voluntary enlistment, induction, acceptance of a commission, order to actve duty as a Reserve officer, or otherwise, provided there be no break in service between civilian and military service.

What was stated in the decision, supra, is equally applicable in the case of a civilian officer who occupies an office which terminates upon the appointment by the President of a successor to the office. The terms of the statute seem to require the making of an exception to the general rule that only one person may be paid the salary of an office for the same period. Cf. 4 Comp. Dec. 601; 19 Comp. Gen. 501. The statute appears to have for its purpose the payment for leave of absence concurrently with receipt of military pay in those cases where the officer or employee enters the military or naval service immediately upon ceasing to perform duty in his civil office or position. That purpose would not appear to be defeated simply because a successor has been appointed to the civilian office occupied prior to entrance into the military service.

Question 1 is answered in the affirmative provided the United States attorney actually entered the military service on April 17, 1942. However, if as much as 1 day elapsed between the effective date of his resignation and the date of his actual entrance into the military service, said question is answered in the negative.

Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, if there was no break in service and he had sufficient leave to cover the period from April 17 to June 4, 1942.

Because of the affirmative answer to question 2 no answer is required to question 3.

The other questions presented are not required to be answered at this time.

(B-25446)

CONTRACTS-COST-PLUS-TRAVELING EXPENSES OF CONTRACTORS' EMPLOYEES-SUPPORTING EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS

Claims by cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractors for reimbursement of incidental traveling expense items, such as cab fares, tips, etc., of their employees for which it is not the usual practice, or it is impossible or impracticable, to obtain receipts are not required to be supported by receipts, but those items, such as hotel expense, the nature of which is such that receipts are readily, and usually, obtained concurrently with payment thereof are required to be so supported.

There may not be substituted, in lieu of receipts in support of reimbursements to a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractor for those items of traveling expense of its employees for which receipts are usually obtained or which may not be independently verified from records on file in this office, certifications by the traveler and contracting officer as to the incurrence, correctness, etc., of the expenditure.

Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of War, July 25, 1942:

There has been considered your letter of April 3, 1942, as follows:

Pursuant to the invitation contained in the last paragraph of your decision B-14020, dated January 2, 1941, to submit alternative suggestions on the presentation of evidence where it is impractical to furnish certain documentary evidence generally required in support of vouchers covering reimbursements to cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractors, the following matter is presented for your consideration in connection with prime contracts and subcontracts entered into under the provisions of Public Law 703, 76th Congress, approved July 2, 1940, and similar Acts.

Generally receipts are required in all cases where necessary to establish the actuality and correctness of any expenditure for which the contractor claims reimbursement. However, in those instances where the contractor's employees are in a travel status it frequently is impracticable to secure receipts for each and every incidental expenditure made. No doubt you appreciate the fact that to require receipts for relatively insignificant expenses incurred (cab fares, tips, etc.) results in considerable annoyance to the employee and contractor, aside from being time consuming and delaying the traveler in his official business, which in turn slows down production which is so essential to the war effort. Also, in many instances travelers forget to secure receipts for incidental expenditures made, to try to secure receipts at some later date involves a great loss of time and in some instances is impossible.

It is the desire of the Ordnance Department to formulate some plan whereby cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractors may be relieved of the burdensome requirement of supporting their reimbursement vouchers with receipts for each expenditure incurred by their employees while in a travel status. To this end, the inclosed form has been designed. The form appears to cover all expenditures normally made by a person while in a travel status.

It is proposed, with your approval, to suggest to prime contractors that they use a form similar to the form forwarded herewith, such form to bear certificate by the traveler stating that the expenditures listed thereon were incurred and paid by him and are applicable to the contract and that he has been reimbursed by the contractor in the amount stated thereon. Further, that the form bear a statement by the contracting officer or his representative, that he has examined the items for which reimbursement is claimed and found them to be reasonable and incurred by the employee while doing work applicable to the contract. This form, properly itemized and certified, will constitute the only data required to support vouchers covering payment to prime contractors for reimbursement to their employees for expenditures made while in a travel status.

If the inclosed form and procedure outlined above do not meet with your approval, it is respectfully requested that suggestions be offered wherein requirement of furnishing individual receipts for each item of expense for which the employee incurs, may be eliminated.

The form proposed for use in connection with charges made on vouchers covering reimbursement for traveling expenses incurred by the contractor on behalf of its employees in the performance of costplus-a-fixed-fee contracts is designated as "Traveling Expense Report" and bears on the reverse thereof, in purported substantiation of such charges, the following certifications:

Certificate by Traveler.

I, certify that the expenditures listed hereon were incurred and paid by me and are applicable to work under contract No. and that I have been reimbursed by

stated thereon.

Signed

Certificate by Contracting Officer's Representative.

I,

in the amount

(Traveler)

certify that the expenditures listed hereon have been examined by me; found to be reasonable; and were incurred by an employee of the Contractor while in a travel status doing work applicable to Contract No.

The reasons assigned in your letter for the proposed substitution of the certifications, quoted above, for signed receipts, otherwise required, "where necessary to establish the actuality and correctness of any expenditure for which the contractor claims reimbursement," suggest a misapprehension as to the audit requirements of this office. While it is desirable and proper, in connection with all claims for reimbursement of expenditures chargeable to public funds, that the record should establish that the items involved represent reimbursable expenditures actually made, receipts or similar evidence is required to be furnished in support of those expenses, only, for which such evidence is usually obtained or which may not be verified independently on the basis of records on file in this office. That is to say, so far as concerns the incidental expenses specifically referred to by you, such as cab fares, tips, etc., it is recognized that receipts in support thereof are not usually obtained; are, as a rule, impracticable, if not impossible, to procure; and, accordingly, are not required. Since it appears that, while the said certifications are designed to eliminate the necessity for receipts in support of all traveling expenses, the objections made to the furnishing of such evidence is confined primarily, if not entirely, to the said incidental expenses, such objections, for the reasons stated, are without foundation in fact.

With reference to the items of travel expense for which receipts generally are required by this office-that is, expenses the nature of which is such that a receipt is readily and usually concurrently obtained with the payment thereof, as, for instance, hotel expense, and for which the paid bill is the best and often the only evidence upon which the propriety of the charges may be determined-the duty and responsibility with which this office is entrusted perforce require that