A-12688, FEBRUARY 2, 1926, 5 COMP. GEN. 571

A-12688: Feb 2, 1926

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

LONGEVITY - SERVICE AS ATTENDANT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SERVICE AS AN ATTENDANT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE IS CIVILIAN SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE COUNTED BY AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY FOR LONGEVITY PAY PURPOSES UNDER THE ACTS OF MAY 18. 1926: THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION THE CLAIM OF MAJ. IT APPEARS THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE IN LONGEVITY PAY WAS PAID DECEMBER 4. THE AMOUNT THUS PAID WAS REFUNDED JULY 17. CLAIMANT'S SERVICES IN THE ARMY ARE SHOWN BY THE OFFICIAL ARMY REGISTER. TO HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUS FROM NOVEMBER 1. WAS EIGHT YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS. ARE RELIED UPON TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM FOR LONGEVITY PAY WITH OVER 10 YEARS' SERVICE. WHOSE PAY IS FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SURGEON GENERAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATES CURRENT IN THE PARTICULAR LOCALITY FOR LABORERS AND SIMILAR SERVICES.

A-12688, FEBRUARY 2, 1926, 5 COMP. GEN. 571

ARMY PAY, LONGEVITY - SERVICE AS ATTENDANT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE SERVICE AS AN ATTENDANT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE IS CIVILIAN SERVICE AND MAY NOT BE COUNTED BY AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY FOR LONGEVITY PAY PURPOSES UNDER THE ACTS OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, AND JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 627.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, FEBRUARY 2, 1926:

THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION THE CLAIM OF MAJ. RALPH HOSPITAL, FIELD ARTILLERY, UNITED STATES ARMY, FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LONGEVITY PAY AS MAJOR WITH OVER 10 YEARS' SERVICE AND LONGEVITY PAY AS MAJOR WITH LESS THAN 10 BUT OVER 5 YEARS' SERVICE, DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1922, TO JUNE 30, 1925.

IT APPEARS THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE IN LONGEVITY PAY WAS PAID DECEMBER 4, 1924, BY CAPT. BEN B. BOON, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, FOR THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1922, TO NOVEMBER 30, 1924, IN THE AMOUNT OF $725. DUE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH AMOUNT IN THE AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER, THE AMOUNT THUS PAID WAS REFUNDED JULY 17, 1925.

CLAIMANT'S SERVICES IN THE ARMY ARE SHOWN BY THE OFFICIAL ARMY REGISTER, 1926, TO HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUS FROM NOVEMBER 1, 1913. HIS MILITARY-SERVICE CREDIT FOR LONGEVITY-PAY PURPOSES TO JUNE 30, 1922, WAS EIGHT YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS. IN ADDITION THERETO, SERVICES AS ATTENDANT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FROM APRIL 1 TO MAY 31, 1910, SEPTEMBER 19, 1910, TO OCTOBER 16, 1911, AND JULY 16, 1912, TO APRIL 30, 1913, A TOTAL OF 2 YEARS AND 13 DAYS, ARE RELIED UPON TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM FOR LONGEVITY PAY WITH OVER 10 YEARS' SERVICE, JUNE 30, 1922.

PUBLIC HEALTH REGULATIONS, PARAGRAPHS 105 TO 112, SHOW ATTENDANTS TO BE SUBORDINATE EMPLOYEES BELOW THE GRADE OF CLERK, APPOINTED UNDER CIVIL- SERVICE REGULATIONS, AND WHOSE PAY IS FIXED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SURGEON GENERAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATES CURRENT IN THE PARTICULAR LOCALITY FOR LABORERS AND SIMILAR SERVICES.

IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CIVILIAN SERVICES RENDERED IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE COUNTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACTS OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, AND JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 627, FOR LONGEVITY-PAY PURPOSES BY AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY, 4 COMP. GEN. 72. SUCH DECISION HAS EQUAL APPLICATION UNDER THE ACTS CITED TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY. CLAIMANT NOT HAVING HAD 10 YEARS' SERVICE, WHICH IS AUTHORIZED TO BE COUNTED FOR LONGEVITY-PAY PURPOSES, IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE INCREASE OF LONGEVITY PAY CLAIMED BY HIM. HIS CLAIM IS THEREFORE DISALLOWED.

IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT BY SETTLEMENT NO. 082165-W, DATED JUNE 3, 1925, CLAIMANT WAS ALLOWED $210.83 ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN LONGEVITY PAY AS MAJOR WITH OVER 10 YEARS' SERVICE AND MAJOR WITH OVER 5 YEARS' SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 18, 1921, TO JUNE 30, 1922. THE ALLOWANCE WAS BASED ON HIS SERVICE IN THE ARMY AND HIS CIVILIAN SERVICES IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, THUS MAKING A TOTAL OF 10 YEARS' SERVICE ON OCTOBER 18, 1921. AS THE TIME SERVED AS ATTENDANT IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO BE COUNTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS LONGEVITY PAY, THE ALLOWANCE BY THIS SETTLEMENT WAS ERRONEOUS.