But in the report submitted it is shown that, owing to the difference in facilities afforded in the two services, the Navy nurses are not receiving the same allowances as Army nurses if the Army Regulations are strictly applied to them. For instance, it is stated that there are available at Army posts Government conveyances for the transportation of baggage of Army nurses, and it is customary to use them for that purpose. Navy nurses, on the contrary, are obliged to use the commercial transfer companies, as naval hospitals maintain no conveyances comparable to the post quartermaster's wagons at Army posts. In view of these conditions it is stated that the reimbursement for actual cost of baggage transfer, limited to not more than two pieces as provided in this item, would not be a greater allowance than that given to Army nurses. In each case their baggage would be transferred without cost to them. And, further, it is stated that because of the available Government vehicles at Army posts Army nurses are instructed to use, and do use, these vehicles as a part of their journey in going from the station to the hospital and returning from the hospital to the station. Being furnished carriage transportation by the Government, there is no occasion for insertion of a provision therefor in the Army Regulations. But the Navy nurses do not have the use of such vehicles, for none are maintained at naval hospitals. And that under these circumstances the provision for "actual cost of cab, carriage, or taxi hire" under exceptional circumstances, when street car service is not available, would not give Navy nurses more than Army nurses are receiving under existing regulations. In view of the difference in the facilities afforded in the two services as above outlined, the following items in the proposed schedule may be allowed Navy nurses in addition to those expressly provided by the Army Regulations: "2. Actual cost of baggage transfer as required by necessities of the journey; receipt for same to be furnished; baggage limited to not more than two pieces. "8. Street-car fare, or, under exceptional circumstances, when street-car service is not available, actual cost of cab, carriage, or taxi hire. When charge is made for cost of conveyance other than street car, full explanation of necessity therefor must be made, and approval of the Secretary of the Navy obtained therefor." By virtue of the facilities afforded at Army hospitals, the Army nurses receive personal transportation and transfer of baggage without cost to them, and it is therefore not necessary to include these items in the Army schedule for their benefit. But the Government has furnished no such facilities at naval hospitals for the benefit of Navy nurses, and it would therefore seem that the allowance of the two items above mentioned would not more than place them on the same footing, as far as personal transportation and transfer of baggage is concerned, as Army nurses, and grant them the same allowances in this respect as are provided for the Nurse Corps (female) of the Army within the meaning of the statutes above quoted. CHECKAGE AGAINST TRAVEL PAY OF ENLISTED MEN ON ACCOUNT OF INDEBTEDNESS. Checkage against the travel pay of a discharged enlisted man on account of indebtedness is unauthorized. Decision by Comptroller Downey, March 31, 1914: The Auditor for the War Department submitted for approval, disapproval, or modification, his decision of March 25, 1914, as follows: "In the consideration of the claim of Jesse J. Saylor, late private, Company A, Eighteenth United States Infantry, for travel pay alleged to have been short paid on his discharge of December 19, 1913, the question arises as to what effect the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat., 576), has on the practice of paying the soldier his travel pay in full, regardless of any indebtedness due to the Government or to Government instrumentalities, such as post exchanges, company funds, etc. "The practice referred to is set forth in paragraph 1003 of the Manual of the Pay Department for 1910, as follows: "1003. Indebtedness on account of court-martial fines is not an offset against a man's travel pay.-(Comp., Aug. 26, 1901, Cir. 5, A. G. O., 1902.) 666 "A soldier should not be left at the place of his discharge without the means of procuring his transportation to place of enlistment, and should be paid for travel allowances without regard to his indebtedness to the United States for clothing overdrawn.-(8 Comp., 624, Mar. 13, 1902; case Marine Corps.) 666 Overpayments of pay (including allotments) may be deducted from travel pay if there is not sufficient pay or clothing money due to satisfy such overpayment.-(Cir. 269, P. M. G. O., May 16, 1903.)' "Also in a note to paragraph 944 of the same manual, which reads. as follows: "NOTE.-Amounts due post exchange can not be deducted from travel pay in the settlement of final statements.' "The practice as thus set forth in the Paymaster's Manual appears to be founded upon decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury. See also 18 Comp., 621, and decisions there cited. There is no statute. known to this office which prohibits the deduction of a soldier's indebtedness to the United States from his travel pay. The act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat., 576), supra, provides: "That hereafter when an enlisted man is discharged from the service, except by way of punishment for an offense, he shall be en titled to transportation in kind and subsistence from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment, or to such other place within the continental limits of the United States as he may select, to which the distance is no greater than from the place of discharge to place of enlistment; but if the distance be greater he may be furnished with transportation in kind and subsistence for a distance equal to that from place of discharge to place of enlistment, or, in lieu of such transportation and subsistence, he shall, if he so elects, receive 2 cents a mile, except for sea travel, from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment.' "This statute gives to the soldier the right to elect whether he shall receive transportation in kind and subsistence from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment, or whether he shall receive 2 cents a mile, except for sea travel, for such distance. In the event that a soldier shall elect to receive transportation in kind and subsistence, it would appear that the same must necessarily be furnished by the Government, regardless of whether such soldier is or is not indebted to the United States. If, however, the soldier does not desire to return to his place of enlistment, there does not appear to be any good and sufficient reason why he should not reimburse the Government for any indebtedness which he may owe, whether it be on account of overpayments, clothing overdrawn, or indebtedness to the post exchange. The decisions referred to were all based on laws providing for the payment of a specific mileage or for transportation and subsistence in kind or mileage at the option of the Government; and for that reason would not necessarily govern the construction of the existing law relating to travel pay. "The reasons for not withholding a soldier's indebtedness to the United States from travel pay due him on discharge is set forth in 8 Comp., 624, but the reason of public policy does not apply when the soldier may, if he actually desires to return to the place of his enlistment, receive in kind the necessary transportation and subsistence. "In view of the foregoing, I am of opinion and so decide that when an enlisted man is discharged from the service, and he shall elect to receive 2 cents a mile in lieu of transportation in kind and subsistence for travel from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment, such travel pay is subject to deduction to make good any indebtedness of such soldier to the United States, or to such instrumentalities of the Government as shall have been legally established, such as post exchanges and company funds. (See case of Woog v. U. S., decided by the Court of Claims Jan. 13, 1913.)" This office has repeatedly held that an enlisted man's indebtedness to the United States was not a proper charge against the travel pay due him on his discharge from the service. These decisions were based principally upon the ground of public policy. They were rendered when the various laws relative to travel pay were different from the present law, and the question arises whether the change in the law necessitates a change in the rule. For many years it was optional with the Government to furnish the soldier with transportation from the place of discharge to the place of his enlistment, or to commute it. (See sec. 1290 of the Revised Statutes.) This was the law until the act of May 26, 1900 (31 Stat., 210), which provided for a straight commutation of 4 cents per mile. This was in force until the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat., 576), supra, which makes it optional with the soldier to receive transportation in kind and subsistence from the place of his discharge to the place of enlistment, or transportation in kind to any other point of no greater distance, or 2 cents per mile instead of transportation and subsistence in kind. An option once vested in the Government is now vested in the discharged soldier. The Government says to him, first, that he may have transportation in kind and subsistence to the place of his enlistment, or, second, that in lieu thereof he may have transportation to any other point of no greater distance, or, third, that in lieu of either he may have 2 cents a mile for the first-named distance. Out of transportation in kind no deduction for indebtedness is possible, and therefore not contemplated. Of what comparative value, then, could the money specifically guaranteed him in lieu thereof be if it might in turn be confiscated for indebtedness, either to the Government proper or to a post exchange? It may well be said that if he thus comes into possession of the means, he ought to pay his debts, but, in my judgment, there is no authority to enforce such an application of it by deduction, but the intent of the law is directly to the contrary. We are not considering pay during enlistment, but something given the discharged man by law at the termination of his period of service. The law says he may have the money, measured by the number of miles he is entitled to be transported, at a stipulated rate per mile, if he so elects, and there are no conditions except that he be not discharged by way of punishment for an offense. Indebtedness to a post exchange might merit some separate consideration if the general conclusion were not as it is. COMMUTATION OF QUARTERS. Officers of the Navy on duty at the Naval Academy held, under circumstances stated, not entitled to commutation of quarters. See decision. Decision by Comptroller Downey, March 31, 1914: M. M. Ramsay, pay inspector, United States Navy, applied March 3, 1914, for revision of the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in settlements Nos. 5536-D, dated January 13, 1914, and 5652-D, dated February 18, 1914, disallowing the following items in his accounts as pay officer of the United States Naval Academy: Certificate No. 5536-D. [Fourth quarter, 1913.] No. 240, C. B. Mayo, Lt. (J. G.) Commutation of quarters for June 1, 1913, 1 da. @ $36 per mo. is disallowed Jan. 13, 1914, per Comp. Dec. dated July 7 and 26, 1911, Bu. Memo. 125. No evidence is furnished that quarters relinquished on May 31, 1913, were required for assignment to other officers___ No. 248, A. A. Corwin, Lt. (J. G.) Commutation of quarters for June 1, 1913, 1 da. @ $36 per mo. disallowed Jan. 13, 1914, same as No. 240, above No. 250, A. T. Beauregard, Lt. (J. G.) Commutation of quarters for June 1, 1913, 1 da. @ $36 per mo. is disallowed Jan. 13, 1914, same as No. 240, above____. No. 255, D. W. Bagley, Lt. Commutation of quarters for June 1, 1913, $1.20 1. 20 1.20 1.60 6.00 Certificate No. 5652-D. No. 334, A. T. Beauregard, Lt. (J. G.) Sundry credit for commutation No. 360, C. B. Mayo, Lt. Sundry credit for commutation of quarters for 31.20 41.60 41. 60 "2. The officers, above mentioned, on May 31, 1913, vacated the public quarters assigned them, in obedience to written orders of the superintendent, the original of which orders were forwarded to the Auditor for Navy Department with my returns for the period involved. "3. The superintendent on January 19, 1914, in reply to a letter from me, stated that the officers occupying the quarters in question were ordered to vacate said quarters in order that same might be repaired during the repair period at the Naval Academy, which is from June 1 to October 1 of each year.' (Copy of said letter, original of which was forwarded to the auditor, is transmitted herewith.) |