Mr. SNYDER. General, looking at the flight-pay projects on page 12 of the justifications, which I appreciate applies solely to officers, I should like you to state if you pay flight pay to student aviators. General LOUGHRY. Yes, sir. Mr. SNYDER. I ask that because the Comptroller General ruled on last December 16 that student aviators of the Marine Corps were entitled to flight pay, and that ruling also applied to the Navy. In an earlier decision Army student aviators were barred by the legal definition, applying to the Army alone, of a flying officer. We endeavor to keep the services on a uniform basis as to pay. We have a hard time doing it at times, as we all know. How does the Army feel about this matter? General LOUGHRY. I would like to make a brief statement, and Colonel Bradley is here from the Air Corps to make a further statement. It is my understanding that so far this situation is not cleared up, and that the decision of the Comptroller General was simply in accordance with existing law. The law, as it applies to the Navy flying officers, does include student aviators; whereas the law pertaining to the Army provides that the flying officer shall consist of rated pilots, observers, and members of combat crews. The difference is the result of a difference in the existing law. Is that correct, Colonel Bradley? Colonel BRADLEY. Officer student aviators receive only $60 per month for flight pay during the period they are undergoing training. They do not receive 50 percent flight pay until they become rated pilots or observers. Mr. SNYDER. General, I suggest, if any discrimination exists, that you prepare some language designed to remove it, and submit it to the clerk of the committee before we mark up the bill. In the report of the Committee on Appropriations to the House of Representatives, Report No. 2266, concerning the proposed bill, on page 11, appears the following: The second phrase of the proviso, applying to commissioned officers and warrant officers undergoing flying training, is intended to equalize flying pay of Army and Navy personnel undergoing flying instruction. The provision, as presented by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, was approved by the House of Representatives and the Senate and enacted as a part of the act of July 2, 1942, in the above-quoted form. It is apparent that the inclusion within the act of July 2, 1942, of the phrase "commissioned officers and warrant officers while undergoing flying training" was designed to provide the 50 percent additional flying pay to those officers of the Army undergoing training as student aviators only, the purpose being to place such officers within the same pay status as student aviators of the Navy and Marine Corps. It must be held, therefore, that Captain Champion, in his capacity as aviation medical examiner under orders to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights, is not a flying officer within the contemplation of that provision. Accordingly, payment on the voucher, which is retained in this office, is not authorized. (B-31864) PAY-LONGEVITY-SERVICE CREDITS INACTIVE SERVICE IN THE OFFICERS' RESERVE CORPS Section 9 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, which specifies the service which may be counted for longevity pay purposes by enlisted men paid under its provisions, does not authorize the counting of inactive service in the Officers' Reserve Corps, and, therefore, such inactive service may not be counted for longevity pay purposes by an enlisted man of the Army. Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to Col. W. B. Miller, U. S. Army, February 1, 1943: There has been considered your letter of December 23, 1942, as follows: The inclosed War Department Form No. 337 with statement of service attached, covering claim of T-5/Gr. Jack I. C. Wheeler, R-729372, for difference in longevity pay between over six years' service and over twenty years' service for the period July 21, 1942, to October 31, 1942, inclusive, having been presented to the undersigned, an accountable disbursing officer, for payment, is forwarded for advance decision. The undersigned is in doubt as to whether or not twenty years' service can be credited for longevity purposes, inasmuch as credit claimed includes inactive service in the Officers' Reserve Corps. No further action toward payment of this claim will be taken by the disbursing officer concerned, pending final action thereon. Wheeler bases his claim for longevity pay as an enlisted man with over twenty years' service on service in the Officers' Reserve Corps from April 25, 1924, to April 25, 1938, with the following periods of active duty: August 17, 1924 to August 31, 1924 September 14, 1926 to September 28, 1926 August 17, 1927 to August 20, 1927 August 5, 1928 to August 18, 1928 February 29, 1936 to May 20, 1936 Section 9 of the Pay Readjustment Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 363, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Every enlisted man paid under the provisions of this section shall receive an increase of 5 per centum of the base pay of his grade for each three years of service up to thirty years. Such service shall be active Federal service in any of the services mentioned in the title of this Act or Reserve components thereof; service in the active National Guard of the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia; and service in the enlisted Reserve Corps of the Army, the Naval Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. [Italics supplied.] The Army is one of the services mentioned in the title of the abovereferred to act and the Officers' Reserve Corps is a Reserve component of the Army of the United States. 10 U. S. C. 2. By the express terms of section 9 of the act, supra, only active Federal service in the Reserve components is authorized to be counted by enlisted men for longevity pay purposes except to the extent therein otherwise provided. Cf. 16 Comp. Gen. 474. The last clause of this same section 9 specifically enumerates those Reserve components in which inactive service may be counted by enlisted men for longevity pay purposes (see 22 Comp. Gen. 411, 419) and the Officers' Reserve Corps i included in that enumeration. Thus, it follows that an enliste may not count inactive service in the Officers' Reserve Corps for longevity pay purposes. Wheeler's service record indicates that he had less than six months' active duty as a member of the Officers' Reserve Corps. Accordingly, payment on the voucher, which is retained in this office, is not authorized. (B-29424) RENTAL ALLOWANCE-PRESUMPTION OF ADEQUACY OF QUARTERS WHEN OCCUPIED BY OFFICER AND HIS DEPENDENTS Insofar as concerns the rental allowance authorized to be paid under the circumstances and conditions of sections 6 of the acts of June 10, 1922, as amended, and June 16, 1942, and the applicable regulations, quarters assigned to a naval officer which were considered inadequate for himself and his dependents become presumptively adequate when voluntarily occupied by the officer and his dependents, and, therefore, no rental allowance as for an officer with dependents is payable for periods during which the quarters are so occupied, but the presumption of adequacy does not extend to periods during which the officer's dependents do not actually occupy the quarters. Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, February 2, 1943: There has been considered your letter of October 7, 1942, requesting decision whether Lieutenant Commander Marshall A. Anderson, U. S. Navy, Retired, is entitled to rental allowance as for an officer with dependents (lawful wife) from November 1, 1941, to August 7, 1942, for periods during which his dependent did not occupy public quarters at his permanent station. It is disclosed that during the period involved the officer's permanent station was United States Fleet Training Base, San Clemente Island, California, and that, as commanding officer of the station, he occupied public quarters consisting of a living room, two bedrooms and a bath. The quarters had no kitchen facilities. For certain periods between November 1, 1941, and August 7, 1942, both the officer and his wife occupied the quarters. The exact dates during which the officer's wife resided with him in the quarters were the subject of controversy but the officer now has agreed to accept the statements in this connection made by Lieutenant R. L. Buswell (SC), USNR, the disbursing officer at the officer's station at that time, who states that the officer's wife occupied the quarters from November 1 to 25, 1941, December 9, 1941, to January 20, 1942, February 10 to April 14, 1942, and April 28 to June 4, 1942, all dates inclusive. On this basis, it appears that the officer's wife lived at his station for periods totaling more than five months out of the approximately seven months involved and, hence, that she may not be considered as merely making brief visits there. It is stated that the officer was credited with rental allowance as an officer with dependents from November 1, 1941, to March 31, 1942. It is understood that you are satisfied the officer is not entitled to rental allowance for periods his wife was actually present at his permanent station and occupied the public quarters there, and that your only doubt in the matter is with reference to those periods during which the quarters were not in fact occupied by her. Section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 628, as amended by section 2 of the act of May 31, 1924, 43 Stat. 250, provided: Except as otherwise provided in the fourth paragraph of this section, each commissioned officer below the grade of brigadier general or its equivalent, in any of the services mentioned in the title of this Act, while either on active duty or entitled to active duty pay shall be entitled at all times to a money allowance for rental of quarters. No rental allowance shall accrue to an officer, having no dependents, while he is on field or sea duty, nor while an officer with or without dependents is assigned as quarters at his permanent station the number of rooms provided by law for an officer of his rank or a less number of rooms in any particular case wherein, in the judgment of competent superior authority of the service concerned, a less number of rooms would be adequate for the occupancy of the officer and his dependents. Regulations in execution of the provisions of this section in peace and in war shall be made by the President and shall, wherever practical in his judgment, be uniform for all of the services concerned, including adjunct forces thereof. Section 6 of the act of June 16, 1942, 56 Stat. 361, Public Law 607, effective June 1, 1942, is, in part, as follows: SEC. 6. Except as otherwise provided in this section, each commissioned officer below the grade of brigadier general or its equivalent, in any of the services mentioned in the title of this Act, while either on active duty or entitled to active-duty pay shall be entitled at all times to a money allowance for rental of quarters. * No rental allowance shall accrue to an officer having no dependents while he is on field or sea duty, nor shall any rental allowance accrue to an officer with or without dependents who is assigned quarters at his permanent station unless a competent superior authority of the service concerned certifies that such quarters are not adequate for the occupancy of the officer and his dependents, if any: Provided, That an officer although furnished with quarters shall be entitled to rental allowance as authorized in this section if by reason of orders of competent authority his dependents are prevented from occupying such quarters. Pursuant to the authority vested in the President by the quoted provisions of section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, as amended, regulations were promulgated by Executive Order No. 4063, August 13, 1924, in part, as follows: (b) Every officer permanently stationed at a post, yard, or station where public quarters are available, will be assigned thereat as quarters the number of rooms prescribed by law for an officer of his rank, or a less number of rooms determined by competent superior authority, in accordance with regulations of the Department concerned, to be adequate in the particular case for the occupancy of the officer and his dependents, if any; which regulations shall provide among other things that quarters voluntarily occupied by an officer with his dependents shall be conclusively presumed to be adequate and shall be assigned accordingly. U. S. Navy Regulations, C. N. R. 16 October 9, 1934, Article 1819 (7), provides: zolg The voluntary occupation by an officer without dependents or by an officer with his dependents of the quarters assigned shall be conclusive proof that they are adequate. The quarters occupied by the officer here involved were apparently considered inadequate for himself and dependents and were not officially so assigned. However, it is clear that, insofar as rental allowance is concerned, public quarters voluntarily occupied by an officer with his dependents are conclusively presumed to be adequate during the period of occupancy. In other words, if public quarters otherwise considered inadequate are voluntarily occupied by an officer and his dependents, his situation with respect to rental allowance is the same, during the period of such occupancy, as if he had been officially assigned adequate quarters. This presumption of adequacy, however, does not extend beyond the periods of occupancy. Consequently, the circumstance that quarters occupied by an officer and his dependents are conclusively presumed to be adequate does not make the quarters actually adequate, within the meaning of the statutory provisions, for periods during which the officer's dependents do not actually occupy the quarters. The record in this case indicates that during the periods Lieutenant Commander Anderson's wife did not occupy public quarters he was not assigned adequate public quarters at his permanent station within the meaning of the law and regulations, and if otherwise correct, the officer's account may be adjusted on the basis that he was entitled to rental allowance as an officer with dependents during such periods, provided that for the period June 4 to August 31, 1942, when his wife did not occupy quarters at the station, it be certified by competent superior authority, pursuant to section 6 of the act of June 16, 1942, supra, effective June 1, 1942, that the quarters occupied by the officer were not adequate for the occupancy of the officer and his dependents. (B-31590) SIX MONTHS' DEATH GRATUITY PAY-EFFECT OF DEATH OF BENEFICIARY Where the widow, child or children, or designated beneficiary of a Navy officer, enlisted man or nurse dies subsequent to the death of the person in the service but prior to payment of the six months' death gratuity authorized by the act of May 22, 1928, as amended, the right to receive the gratuity passes to the legal representative of the deceased beneficiary. Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, February 2, 1943: There has been received your letter of January 6, 1943, with enclosure, requesting decision on the questions stated therein as follows: (a) When the widow, child or children, or designated beneficiary of a deceased Navy officer, enlisted man or nurse dies prior to payment of the six |