A-5440, A-7625, A-8310, MARCH 25, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 791

A-5440,A-7625,A-8310: Mar 25, 1925

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

TRAVELING EXPENSES - REPEATED TRAVEL OF NAVAL OFFICERS THIS DECISION TREATS WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN TRAVEL PERFORMED BY OFFICERS OF THE NAVY WAS OF A CHARACTER AS TO ENTITLE SAID OFFICERS TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10. 1925: THERE ARE BEFORE THIS OFFICE FOR DECISION THREE CASES IN EACH OF WHICH THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN TRAVEL PERFORMED BY AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY WAS OF A CHARACTER TO ENTITLE THE OFFICER TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10. BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SEVERAL CASES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED AS TO THE TRAVEL A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTES.

A-5440, A-7625, A-8310, MARCH 25, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 791

TRAVELING EXPENSES - REPEATED TRAVEL OF NAVAL OFFICERS THIS DECISION TREATS WITH THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN TRAVEL PERFORMED BY OFFICERS OF THE NAVY WAS OF A CHARACTER AS TO ENTITLE SAID OFFICERS TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 631. IT GIVES A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND DECISIONS RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES. FOR POINTS INVOLVED SEE DECISION.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, MARCH 25, 1925:

THERE ARE BEFORE THIS OFFICE FOR DECISION THREE CASES IN EACH OF WHICH THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT CERTAIN TRAVEL PERFORMED BY AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY WAS OF A CHARACTER TO ENTITLE THE OFFICER TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 631. BECAUSE OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SEVERAL CASES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCLOSED AS TO THE TRAVEL A BRIEF HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE STATUTES, REGULATIONS, AND DECISIONS RELATING TO PAYMENT OF ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL "PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES" SEEMS APPROPRIATE, BEFORE CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES.

THE NAVAL APPROPRIATION ACT OF JUNE 7, 1900, 31 STAT. 685, PROVIDED:

* * * THAT IN LIEU OF TRAVELING EXPENSES AND ALL ALLOWANCES WHATSOEVER CONNECTED THEREWITH, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE, OFFICERS OF THE NAVY TRAVELING FROM POINT TO POINT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES UNDER ORDERS SHALL HEREAFTER RECEIVE MILEAGE AT THE RATE OF EIGHT CENTS PER MILE, DISTANCE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE SHORTEST USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE; BUT IN CASES WHERE ORDERS ARE GIVEN FOR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN THE SAME VICINITY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION, DIRECT THAT ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES ONLY BE ALLOWED. ACTUAL EXPENSES ONLY SHALL BE PAID FOR TRAVEL UNDER ORDERS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES IN NORTH AMERICA.

THIS PROVISO WAS REPEATED IN IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN THE DEFICIENCY ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1029.

THE NAVAL APPROPRIATION ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1109, PROVIDED:

* * * THAT IN CASES WHERE ORDERS ARE GIVEN TO OFFICERS OF THE NAVY OR MARINE CORPS FOR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN SUCH VICINITY AS IN THE DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IS APPROPRIATE, HE MAY DIRECT THAT ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES ONLY BE ALLOWED.

THE PROVISO WAS REENACTED IN THE NAVAL APPROPRIATION ACT OF JULY 1, 1902, 32 STAT. 663, WITH THE WORD "HEREAFTER" INSERTED BETWEEN THE FIRST WORD,"THAT" AND THE WORD "IN," AND GOVERNED PAYMENTS OF EXPENSES FOR REPEATED TRAVEL UNTIL JULY 1, 1922, WHEN SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 631, BECAME EFFECTIVE. THE CASES HERE FOR CONSIDERATION ARE GOVERNED BY THE LATTER STATUTE WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE ARMY, COAST GUARD, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, AS WELL AS TO THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS, AND PROVIDES:

SEC. 12. THAT OFFICERS OF ANY OF THE SERVICES MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THIS ACT, WHEN TRAVELING UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS WITHOUT TROOPS, SHALL RECEIVE A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 8 CENTS PER MILE, DISTANCE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE SHORTEST USUALLY TRAVELED ROUTE AND EXISTING LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUE OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY TRAVELING UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS, AND FOR DEDUCTION TO BE MADE FROM MILEAGE ACCOUNTS WHEN TRANSPORTATION IS FURNISHED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE HEREBY MADE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE SERVICES MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THIS ACT, BUT IN CASES WHEN ORDERS ARE GIVEN FOR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN THE SAME VICINITY, AS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED, HE MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION, DIRECT THAT ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES ONLY BE ALLOWED. ACTUAL EXPENSES ONLY SHALL BE PAID FOR TRAVEL UNDER ORDERS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE UNITED STATES IN NORTH AMERICA. UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY LAW, NO OFFICER OF THE SERVICES MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THIS ACT SHALL BE ALLOWED OR PAID ANY SUM IN EXCESS OF EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED FOR SUBSISTENCE WHILE TRAVELING ON DUTY AWAY FROM HIS DESIGNATED POST OF DUTY, NOR ANY SUM FOR SUCH EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED IN EXCESS OF $7 PER DAY. THE HEADS OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS CONCERNED ARE AUTHORIZED TO PRESCRIBE PER DIEM RATES OF ALLOWANCE, NOT EXCEEDING $6, IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE TO OFFICERS TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND AWAY FROM THEIR DESIGNATED POSTS OF DUTY.

EARLY IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1900, 31 STAT. 685, MANY OFFICERS QUESTIONED THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO DETERMINE WHAT PLACES ARE "IN THE SAME VICINITY," AND NUMEROUS CLAIMS WERE PRESENTED TO THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE TREASURY FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MILEAGE AT 8 CENTS PER MILE FOR REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN PLACES SEPARATED BY CONSIDERABLE DISTANCES AND AMOUNTS ALLOWED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AS ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES. IN THE DECISION OF ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY MITCHELL, DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1900, 7 COMP. DEC. 227, A CLAIM OF THAT CHARACTER, PRESENTED BY LIEUT. COMMANDER W. C. EATON, WAS ALLOWED, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY HAVING EXERCISED THE RIGHT OF DETERMINING THAT THE PLACES BETWEEN WHICH REPEATED TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED WERE NOT IN THE SAME VICINITY.

THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, BY HIS LETTER DATED DECEMBER 11, 1900, SUBMITTED TO THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY A SIMILAR CLAIM OF LIEUT. E. T. WITHERSPOON, REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF THE GENERAL QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE EATON DECISION, AND STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE, AS FOLLOWS:

THE PROVISION IN THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1900, WHICH GAVE THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY DISCRETION TO ALLOW ONLY ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES IN CASES WHERE ORDERS ARE GIVEN FOR TRAVEL TO BE PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN THE SAME VICINITY, WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT AN ABUSE WHICH HAS HERETOFORE EXISTED, WHEREBY OFFICERS TRAVELING REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO STATIONS HAVE PUT THE GOVERNMENT TO UNWARRANTED EXPENSE. IN SOME CASES, THE MILEAGE BEING MUCH MORE THAN THE ACTUAL EXPENSES, IT BECAME PROFITABLE BUSINESS TO MAKE AS MANY TRIPS AS POSSIBLE.

IN DECISION OF JANUARY 31, 1901, 7 COMP. DEC. 376, ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER MITCHELL EXPRESSED HIMSELF AS "MUCH IMPRESSED" WITH THE SECRETARY'S "REMARKS RESPECTING THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT," AND DECLARED THAT "WHILE THE ACT MAY NOT AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY TO MAKE A CONCLUSIVE DECISION AS TO WHAT PLACES ARE IN THE VICINITY OF EACH OTHER * * * HIS DETERMINATION OF THAT QUESTION IS ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT, AND * * * SHOULD NOT BE DISREGARDED EXCEPT FOR THE MOST COGENT REASONS.' SEE ALSO 9 COMP. DEC. 713; 11 ID. 744.

THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1109, SO MODIFIED THE ACT OF JUNE 7, 1900, 31 STAT. 685, THAT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AS TO WHAT PLACES ARE "IN THE SAME VICINITY" HAVE NOT SINCE BEEN OPEN TO QUESTION. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION WILLETS V. THE UNITED STATES, 38 CT.CLS. 534, AND 12 COMP. DEC. 719. THE REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROMULGATED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND THE DECISIONS OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS HAVE CONSISTENTLY RECOGNIZED THE PURPOSE OF THE SEVERAL ACTS, TO BE AS STATED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY IN HIS LETTER OF DECEMBER 11, 1900, AND HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO PROMOTE THAT PURPOSE AND TO FORESTALL ANY ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THE MISCHIEF OR ABUSE THE STATUTES WERE INTENDED TO REMEDY.

THE NAVY REGULATIONS OF 1920 ARE SUBSTANTIALLY LIKE PREVIOUS REGULATIONS ON THE SUBJECT AND ARE AS FOLLOWS:

ART. 1809. TO FACILITATE ACTION BY THE DEPARTMENT, OFFICERS ON INSPECTION, RECRUITING, OR OTHER DUTY THAT NECESSITATES REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN THE SAME POINTS SHALL KEEP AN ACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THEIR ACTUAL EXPENSES AND ALSO THE NUMBER OF MILES TRAVELED BY THE MOST DIRECT ROUTE, AND SUBMIT BOTH TO THE DEPARTMENT WITH THEIR CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF MILEAGE.

ART. 1812. (1) NO OFFICER OF THE NAVY OR MARINE CORPS SHALL BE PAID MILEAGE EXCEPT FOR TRAVEL ACTUALLY PERFORMED AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND IN OBEDIENCE TO ORDERS.

(2) NO ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES UNLESS THE SAME BE INCURRED UNDER ORDERS ORIGINALLY ISSUED OR SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. ALL ALLOWANCES MADE FOR THIS PURPOSE MUST ALSO BE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

(4) ORDERS OF OFFICERS INVOLVING TRAVEL MUST DESIGNATE THE PLACE FROM WHICH AND THE POINT OR POINTS TO WHICH THE TRAVEL IS TO BE PERFORMED.

ART. 1815. (1) CLAIMS FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES, INCURRED UNDER ORDERS WHICH DO NOT ENTITLE CLAIMANT TO MILEAGE, SHALL BE ITEMIZED AND IN DUPLICATE AND ACCOMPANIED BY ORIGINAL ORDERS AUTHORIZING TRAVEL AND A CERTIFIED COPY THEREOF, WITH ALL INDORSEMENTS. ALL SUCH CLAIMS SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED, WHEN PRACTICABLE, BY RECEIPTED BILLS, AND, WHEN THIS IS NOT PRACTICABLE A CERTIFICATE TO THAT EFFECT SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE CLAIM. WHEN VOUCHERS ORDINARILY PROCURABLE, SUCH AS HOTEL BILLS, PULLMAN RECEIPTS, ETC., ARE NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE OFFICER'S CLAIM, HE SHALL ATTACH AN EXPLANATION OF HIS OMISSION IN THIS RESPECT.

(2) CLAIMS SHALL BE CONFINED ABSOLUTELY TO NECESSARY EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED. AUTOMOBILE AND CARRIAGE HIRE, WHEN THE NECESSITY THEREFOR IS CLEARLY SHOWN, AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL SHOWN TO BE REASONABLE AND NECESSARY, WILL BE ALLOWED. WHEN EXPENSES FOR TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH ARE INCURRED, A CERTIFICATE SHALL SHOW THAT SUCH MESSAGES WERE OF AN OFFICIAL NATURE, AND COPIES OF TELEGRAMS SENT SHALL BE FURNISHED. CHARGES FOR LAUNDRY OR MINERAL WATERS, OR FOR FEES ON GOVERNMENT VESSELS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. THE NECESSITY FOR ANY DELAY EN ROUTE SHALL BE CLEARLY SHOWN, AND IN ALL CASES A CERTIFICATE THAT THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY EXPENDED SHALL APPEAR ON THE CLAIM.

(3) OFFICERS IN THE UNITED STATES SHALL SUBMIT THEIR CLAIMS TO THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS DIRECT.

(5) OFFICERS ON INSPECTION DUTY ASSIGNED TO A PARTICULAR DISTRICT SHALL BE ALLOWED ACTUAL EXPENSES IN LIEU OF MILEAGE FOR ALL REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN HEADQUARTERS AND POINTS WITHIN THE INSPECTION DISTRICT, IT BEING CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT ALL POINTS WITHIN INSPECTION DISTRICTS ARE IN THE SAME VICINITY.

(6) ALL OFFICERS WHO HAVE ADDITIONAL DUTIES ASSIGNED THEM, REQUIRING REPEATED TRAVEL FROM THEIR REGULAR STATION TO OTHER POINTS, SHALL BE ALLOWED ACTUAL EXPENSES IN LIEU OF MILEAGE, UNLESS MILEAGE IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED IN THEIR ORDERS, THE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERING THAT PLACES ARE IN THE SAME VICINITY WHEN REPEATED TRAVEL IS AUTHORIZED.

(9) IN THE EVENT OF QUESTION ARISING AS TO ANY CLAIM, SUCH CLAIM SHALL BE FORWARDED BY THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS TO THE * * * GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FOR SETTLEMENT.

(15) NO CLAIM SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR EXPENSES WHICH, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, APPEAR UNREASONABLE OR UNNECESSARY * * *.

FOR REFERENCE AS TO THE APPLICATION OF ABOVE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, OR SIMILAR REGULATIONS, SEE 65 MS. COMP. DEC. 987, MAY 21, 1913; 78 ID. 1125, SEPTEMBER 29, 1916; 79 ID. 880, DECEMBER 16, 1916; 81 ID. 401, APRIL 24, 1917; 88 ID. 1416, MARCH 26, 1919; 90 ID. 1385, SEPTEMBER 10, 1919; 91 ID. 969, NOVEMBER 8, 1919; ID. 1686, DECEMBER 12, 1919; ID. 1919, DECEMBER 22, 1919; 15 MS. COMP. GEN. 1280, NOVEMBER 29, 1922; 18 ID. 1067, FEBRUARY 21, 1923; 26 ID. 742, OCTOBER 17, 1923; 32 ID. 64, APRIL 2, 1924; 41 ID. 24, JANUARY 2, 1925; 1 D.M. COMP. GEN. 1162, MARCH 13, 1924; 7 COMP. DEC. 376; 9 ID. 351; ID. 713; 11 ID. 744; 12 ID. 719; 13 ID. 23; ID. 390; 1 COMP. GEN. 726; 2 ID. 572; 4 ID. 507; BILLINGS V. UNITED STATES, 23 CT.CLS. 166; STEELE V. UNITED STATES, 30 ID. ; WILLETS V. UNITED STATES, 38 ID. 534; AND MCCAULEY V. UNITED STATES, 50ID. 105.

ADVERTING NOW TO THE CASES HERE FOR DECISION, EACH WILL BE DESIGNATED BY NAME OF THE OFFICER CONCERNED, AND TO THE DISCLOSED FACTS THE LAW, REGULATIONS, AND DECISIONS HEREINBEFORE SET OUT WILL BE APPLIED.

I. A-7625. THOMAS G. ROBERTS, COMMANDER (C.C.), UNITED STATES NAVY.

COMMANDER ROBERTS APPLIED OCTOBER 30, 1924, FOR REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. 046910, DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1924, WHEREIN HE WAS ALLOWED $6 FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON JUNE 4 AND 5, 1924, AND $5.70, THE NET AMOUNT FOUND DUE HIM AS MILEAGE FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., AND RETURN, FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED JUNE 23 TO 30, 1924. CLAIMANT CONTENDS THAT THE TRIP TO AND FROM ATLANTIC CITY FOR WHICH HE WAS ALLOWED MILEAGE CONSTITUTED REPEATED TRAVEL, FOR WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO ACTUAL EXPENSES, AND HE ASKS THAT AN ADDITIONAL $33.12 BE PAID TO HIM ON THAT BASIS.

BETWEEN NOVEMBER 9, 1922, AND JUNE 30, 1924, DURING WHICH PERIOD ALL TRAVEL IN QUESTION WAS PERFORMED, THE OFFICER WAS ASSIGNED AS NAVAL INSPECTOR OF HULL MATERIAL, EASTERN DISTRICT, PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND MEMBER OF BOARD ON HULL CHANGES. DIRECTION FOR REPEATED TRAVEL UPON THESE DUTIES WAS CONTAINED IN ORDERS ISSUED TO CLAIMANT AT THREE MONTH INTERVALS. THE ORDERS ARE NOT IDENTICAL WITH RESPECT TO THE PLACES THE OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO VISIT BUT THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF EACH ORDER CONTAINED A DIRECTION THAT HE SUBMIT ON THE LAST DAY OF EACH MONTH A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION SHOWING THE AMOUNT OBLIGATED BY HIM FOR TRANSPORTATION AND SUBSISTENCE FOR THAT MONTH IN CONNECTION WITH TRAVEL PERFORMED UNDER THE ORDERS. EACH ORDER CONTAINED A DIRECTION TO THE CLAIMANT THAT IF HE CONSIDERED NECESSARY A RENEWAL OF THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED THEREIN HE SHOULD NOTIFY THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION TO THAT EFFECT A SUFFICIENT TIME BEFORE EXPIRATION OF THE ORDER, GIVING REASONS WHY A RENEWAL SHOULD BE GRANTED. THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1922, AUTHORIZED THE ALLOWANCE OF A FLAT PER DIEM OF $6 PER DAY IN LIEU OF ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES BUT SUBSEQUENT ORDERS AUTHORIZED ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES NOT EXCEEDING $7 PER DAY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL. THE UNLIKE PORTIONS OF THE SEVERAL ORDERS AND THE INDORSEMENTS THEREON AS TO TRAVEL PERFORMED, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

NOVEMBER 9, 1922.

BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND NEW YORK, N.Y., SUCH PLACES WITHIN THE STATES OF PENNSYLVANIA AND MARYLAND EAST OF MERIDIAN 78; SUCH PLACES WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, SOUTH OF PARALLEL 40 DEGREES 15 MINUTES; SUCH PLACES WITHIN THE STATE OF DELAWARE AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO VISIT IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DUTIES AS NAVAL INSPECTOR OF HULL MATERIAL.

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL WILL TERMINATE 31 MARCH, 1923.

I CERTIFY NO TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

MARCH 24, 1923.

BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND QUINCY, MASS., AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO VISIT IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR WORK AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD ON CHANGES.

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL WILL TERMINATE 30 JUNE, 1923.

I CERTIFY NO TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

APRIL 9, 1923.

BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND SUCH PLACES AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO VISIT IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DUTIES AS NAVAL INSPECTOR OF HULL MATERIAL, PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT, PHILA., PA.

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL WILL TERMINATE 30 JUNE, 1923.

I CERTIFY THAT TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO ALTANTIC CITY, N.J., FROM JUNE 27TH TO JUNE 29TH, INCLUSIVE, 1923.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

JUNE 27, 1923.

(TRAVEL AUTHORIZED AS IN ORDER OF APRIL 9, 1923.)

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL SUPERSEDES YOUR ORDERS OF 9 APRIL, 1923, AND WILL TERMINATE 30 SEPTEMBER, 1923.

I CERTIFY NO TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

SEPTEMBER 19, 1923.

(TRAVEL AUTHORIZED AS IN ORDER OF APRIL 9, 1923.)

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL SUPERSEDES YOUR ORDERS OF 27 JUNE, 1923, AND WILL TERMINATE 31 DECEMBER, 1923.

I CERTIFY THAT TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FROM NOVEMBER 9TH TO NOVEMBER 13TH, INCLUSIVE, 1923.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

DECEMBER 8, 1923.

(TRAVEL AUTHORIZED AS IN ORDER OF APRIL 9, 1923.)

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL SUPERSEDES YOUR ORDERS OF 19 SEPTEMBER, 1923, AND WILL TERMINATE 31 MARCH, 1924.

I CERTIFY THAT TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FROM FEBRUARY 24TH TO FEBRUARY 25TH, INCLUSIVE, 1924.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

MARCH 7, 1924.

(TRAVEL AUTHORIZED AS IN ORDER OF APRIL 9, 1923.)

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL SUPERSEDES YOUR ORDERS OF 8 DECEMBER, 1923, AND WILL TERMINATE 30 JUNE, 1924.

I CERTIFY THAT TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED UNDER THESE ORDERS FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FROM APRIL 13TH TO APRIL 14TH, INCLUSIVE, 1924; FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FROM JUNE 4TH TO JUNE 5TH, INCLUSIVE, 1924; AND FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA., TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., FROM JUNE 23RD TO JUNE 30TH, INCLUSIVE, 1924.

(SIGNED) T. G. ROBERTS.

THE CLAIMANT'S POSITION IS THAT EACH OF THE ORDERS ISSUED TO HIM AFTER THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1922, OPERATED AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT ORDER; THAT THE SEVERAL ORDERS TOGETHER COVERED "THE WHOLE UNBROKEN PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST ORDERS TO THE END OF THE LAST; " THAT ANY TRAVEL REPEATED DURING THAT PERIOD CONSTITUTED REPEATED TRAVEL FOR WHICH HE IS ENTITLED TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES; AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO EXPENSES FOR THE TRAVEL TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., AND RETURN IN JUNE, 1924, BECAUSE HE PERFORMED SIMILAR TRAVEL "ABOUT THE SAME TIME" IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

THE TRAVEL-EXPENSE VOUCHER SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM WAS TRANSMITTED TO THIS OFFICE BY THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 1815 (9), NAVY REGULATIONS, 1920. IT BEARS STAMPED INDORSEMENT "FOR SETTLEMENT BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. NOT TO BE PAID BY A DISBURSING OFFICER.' THE VOUCHER HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 1812 (2), NAVY REGULATIONS 1920. IT WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE AUGUST 5, 1924, WITH A FORM MEMORANDUM ATTACHED BEARING THE TYPEWRITTEN SIGNATURE OF THE ACTING PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY AND PURPORTING TO APPROVE THE VOUCHER "FOR SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE FOUND DUE.' THE NECESSITY FOR EXPENSES CLAIMED FOR "BUS" AND "TAXI" FARE IS NOT "CLEARLY SHOWN," AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 1815 (2), NAVY REGULATIONS, 1920. (SEE IN THIS CONNECTION 18 MS. COMP. GEN. 1067, FEBRUARY 21, 1923.)

THE ORDERS ISSUED CLAIMANT AND EFFECTIVE DURING THE PERIOD COVERED BY HIS CLAIM, WERE BY THEIR TERMS EACH SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ORDERS. THE TRAVEL FOR WHICH EXPENSES ARE CLAIMED WAS THE ONLY TRAVEL TO AND FROM ATLANTIC CITY PERFORMED UNDER THE ORDER OF MARCH 7, 1924. IT IS A SETTLED RULE THAT A DIRECTION TO ALLOW ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR REPEATED TRAVEL IS CONTROLLING ONLY OVER THE TRAVEL PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE ORDER AND DOES NOT CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT TO BE MADE FOR TRAVEL UNDER ANY OTHER SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ORDER. 91 MS. COMP. DEC. 1686, DECEMBER 12, 1919; 27 MS. COMP. GEN. 383, NOVEMBER 9, 1923; 3 COMP. GEN. 566; 4 ID. 507. IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL IF A DIRECTION IN AN ORDER ALLOWING ONLY ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES WOULD CONTROL REIMBURSEMENT TO BE MADE FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED UNDER AN EXTENSION OF THE ORDER. IT IS CERTAIN THAT A DIRECTION TO ALLOW ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES IS NOT CONTROLLING UNLESS THE DUTY ASSIGNED REQUIRES TRAVEL BETWEEN TWO OR MORE POINTS IN THE SAME VICINITY AT REASONABLY FREQUENT INTERVALS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PERIOD COVERED BY THE ORDER.

IT IS NOT APPARENT FROM THE ORDERS ISSUED TO CLAIMANT THAT THE TRAVEL TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., WAS NECESSARY TO THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES. THERE IS NO DISCRETION FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PLACES IN THE SAME VICINITY, UNLESS THERE IS AN ORDER EXPRESSLY REQUIRING THE TRAVEL, AND IT MUST CLEARLY APPEAR THAT THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THE PLACES BETWEEN WHICH THE TRAVEL IS PERFORMED ARE IN THE SAME VICINITY BEFORE PAYMENT MAY BE MADE. WILLETS V. UNITED STATES, 38 CT.CLS. 534; 12 COMP. DEC. 719; 91 MS. ID. 1919, DECEMBER 22, 1919; 1 D.M. COMP. GEN. 1162, MARCH 13, 1924; 3 COMP. GEN. 566. ALL TRAVEL AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHETHER INVOLVING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE OR OF ACTUAL EXPENSES, CONTEMPLATES PUBLIC NECESSITY THEREFOR, AND IF NEEDLESS TRAVEL IS PERFORMED, NO NECESSITY OF PUBLIC BUSINESS SO REQUIRING, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF TRAVEL. PERRIMOND V. UNITED STATES, 19 CT.CLS. 509; 6 COMP. DEC. 170; 32 MS. COMP. GEN. 69, APRIL 2, 1924.

THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1922, DESCRIBED IN DETAIL THE DISTRICT WITHIN WHICH THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAD DETERMINED REPEATED TRAVEL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN CONNECTION WITH CLAIMANT'S DUTIES AS INSPECTOR OF HULL MATERIAL, AND THE ORDER OF MARCH 24, 1923, DESIGNATED QUINCY, MASS., AS ONE PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE DISTRICT TO WHICH REPEATED TRAVEL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN CONNECTION WITH CLAIMANT'S DUTIES AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD ON CHANGES. IT IS REMARKABLE THAT DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD NOVEMBER 9, 1922, TO JUNE 30, 1924, WHILE CLAIMANT WAS ASSIGNED TO THOSE DUTIES HE DID NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO PERFORM A SINGLE TRIP TO ANY POINT WITHIN THE DISTRICT DESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OR TO QUINCY, MASS., BUT DID PERFORM THREE ROUND TRIPS TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND TWO ROUND TRIPS TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., WHICH TRIPS CONSTITUTE THE ONLY TRAVEL PERFORMED BY HIM UNDER THE ORDERS QUOTED OF WHICH THERE IS RECORD.

IT IS CLEAR THE TRAVEL TO AND FROM ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., PERFORMED BY CLAIMANT IN JUNE, 1924, WAS NOT REPEATED TRAVEL WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 31; THE VOUCHER COVERING THE EXPENSES SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, AND THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS HAS REFUSED TO PAY IT; THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE TRAVEL WAS UPON THE PUBLIC BUSINESS AND AN INFORMAL INQUIRY OF THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION HAS NOT DEVELOPED ANYTHING FAVORABLE TO A CONCLUSION TO THAT EFFECT. THE VOUCHER FILED TO SUPPORT THAT PORTION OF THE CLAIM RELATING TO HOTEL EXPENSES SHOWS CLAIMANT WAS ACCOMPANIED TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., BY HIS WIFE.

IT MUST BE HELD THAT CLAIMANT HAS NEITHER ESTABLISHED HIS RIGHT TO ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES NOR TO MILEAGE FOR THE TRAVEL IN QUESTION.

UPON REVIEW, THE PORTION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH DISALLOWED CLAIM FOR ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR THE TRIP TO ATLANTIC CITY, N.J., IS SUSTAINED; THE PORTION WHICH ALLOWED MILEAGE FOR THE TRIP IS MODIFIED, AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT TREASURER'S CHECK NO. 46672, DATED OCTOBER 14, 1924, FOR $11.70, ISSUED TO CLAIMANT AND RETURNED BY HIM WITH HIS APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, BE RETAINED UNTIL ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED FROM WHICH IT CAN BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRAVEL PERFORMED WAS OF A NATURE WHICH ENTITLED CLAIMANT TO MILEAGE. UNLESS THAT EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME THE CHECK WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY FOR CANCELLATION AND THERE WILL BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT TO CLAIMANT THE NET AMOUNT THAT MAY OTHERWISE BE FOUND DUE HIM.

II. A-8310. BENJAMIN R. HOLCOMBE, LIEUTENANT, UNITED STATES NAVY.

COMDR. FREDERICK G. PYNE, NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER, HAS REQUESTED REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE M-8524-N, DATED JUNE 30, 1924, WHEREIN $222.14 WAS DISALLOWED IN HIS DISBURSING ACCOUNT BECAUSE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE FOR ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE LATTER DURING SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 1923, WHILE ON DUTY UNDER ORDERS DATED JULY 16, 1923, AT ST. LOUIS AND BRIDGETON, MO., WITH THE NAVAL AIR DETAIL AT THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES, 1923.

THE ORIGINAL ORDERS DIRECTING PERFORMANCE OF THE DUTY ARE NOT ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW, AND ONLY ONE OF THE COPIES BEARS THAT IT IS A TRUE COPY, BUT FOR PURPOSE OF THIS CONSIDERATION COPIES OF BOTH ORDERS ARE ACCEPTED AS TRUE COPIES. THE PERTINENT PORTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

16 JULY, 1923. FROM: BUREAU OF NAVIGATION. O: LIEUTENANT BENJAMIN R. HOLCOMBE, U.S.N., BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS,

NAVY DEPARTMENT. VIA: CHIEF OF BUREAU. SUBJECT: TEMPORARY ADDITIONAL DUTY.

1. WHEN DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS YOU WILL REPORT TO THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAVAL AIR DETAIL, INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES, 1923, AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION, ANACOSTIA, .C., FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AS ASSISTANT FOR THE PREPARATION AND EXECUTION OF THESE RACES.

2. WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAVAL AIR DETAIL, INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES, 1923, ON OR ABOUT 10 SEPTEMBER, 1923, YOU WILL PROCEED BY AIR OR RAIL TO BRIDGETON, MO., FOR TEMPORARY DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE AIR RACES TO BE HELD ON 1, 2, AND 3 OCTOBER, 1923.

3. WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, NAVAL AIR DETAIL, INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES, 1923, ON OR ABOUT 10 OCTOBER, 1923, YOU WILL RETURN TO THE BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS, WASHINGTON, D.C., BY AIR OR RAIL AND RESUME YOUR REGULAR DUTIES.

4. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO YOUR PRESENT DUTIES.

THOS. WASHINGTON.

16 JULY, 1923. FROM: BUREAU OF NAVIGATION. O: LIEUTENANT BENJAMIN R. HOLCOMBE, U.S.N., BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS,

NAVY DEPARTMENT. VIA: CHIEF OF BUREAU. SUBJECT: REPEATED TRAVEL. REFERENCE: (A) BU.NAV. CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 63-22, DATED 19 DECEMBER, 1922.

1. THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAVING DETERMINED THAT REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN THE BELOW-MENTIONED POINTS IS APPROPRIATE, YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO PERFORM SUCH TRAVEL, FROM TIME TO TIME, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE INDICATED BELOW, THIS BEING IN ADDITION TO YOUR PRESENT DUTIES. BETWEEN BRIDGETON, MO., AND ST. LOUIS, MO., AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO VISIT IN OBEDIENCE TO YOUR ORDERS OF 16 JULY, 1923.

THIS AUTHORITY FOR REPEATED TRAVEL WILL TERMINATE 10 OCTOBER, 1923.

3. AS STATED IN REFERENCE (A), YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES, OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL COST OF TRAVEL, INCURRED IN THE EXECUTION OF THESE ORDERS, AT A RATE NOT EXCEEDING $7.00 PER DAY, AS SPECIFIED IN THE ACT OF 10 JUNE, 1922.

THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW IS AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IN DISALLOWING THE SUM OF $222.14 PAID BY ME ON VOUCHER NO. 3200 TO LIEUTENANT B. R. HOLCOMBE, U.S.N., BE REVIEWED AND THE DISALLOWANCE REMOVED.

THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR THE REASON THAT:

"NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED THAT TRAVEL BETWEEN THESE TWO POINTS WAS NECESSARY IN THE PROPER PERFORMANCE OF THE OFFICERS' DUTIES. FURTHERMORE, AS ST. LOUIS IS ONLY 17 MILES FROM BRIDGETON, APPARENTLY ANY TRAVEL INVOLVED WAS IN THE FIELD OF THE OFFICERS' TEMPORARY DUTY, AND DOES NOT GIVE THE RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT OF LIVING EXPENSES, THERE BEING NO PROVISION OF LAW FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH EXPENSES TO AN OFFICER ON TEMPORARY DUTY AWAY FROM HIS STATION IN THE UNITED STATES.'

THE PUBLIC BILL COVERED PAYMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES, UNDER REPEATED TRAVEL ORDERS, DATED 16, JULY, 1923 (COPY INCLOSED). THE ORDERS DIRECTED THAT LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE, HAVING BEEN DETAILED FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AT BRIDGETON, MO., IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES, PERFORM REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN BRIDGETON, MO., AND ST. LOUIS, MO.

IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WAS IN ERROR WHEN IT STATED THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION OF LAW FOR THE PAYMENT OF EXPENSES TO AN OFFICER ON TEMPORARY DUTY AWAY FROM HIS PERMANENT STATION WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE'S PERMANENT STATION WAS THE NAVAL AIR STATION, ANACOSTIA, D.C. HE WAS ORDERED TO DUTY AT BRIDGETON, AS STATED BEFORE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES. BRIDGETON WAS THE LOCATION OF THE FLYING FIELD AND ST. LOUIS WAS THE HEADQUARTERS FOR THE OFFICERS DETAILED. THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE NAVAL AIR DETAIL AT THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES HAD HIS HEADQUARTERS IN THE OFFICES OF THE ST. LOUIS AERONAUTIC CORPORATION IN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING IN ST. LOUIS, MO. ALL ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE NAVAL AIR DETAIL IN THE INTERNATIONAL RACES WAS CONDUCTED FROM THOSE HEADQUARTERS.

IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE OFFICERS OF THE NAVAL AIR DETAIL BE AT BRIDGETON FOR THE ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN THE AIR RACES, AND IT WAS ALSO NECESSARY THAT THEY RETURN DAILY TO ST. LOUIS TO CARRY ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES AND TO OBTAIN SUBSISTENCE AND LODGING, WHICH COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AT BRIDGETON. IN THIS CONNECTION THE FOLLOWING THIRD INDORSEMENT BY THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS IS QUOTED: "FROM: THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS. "TO: THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS. ,SUBJECT: SUSPENSION IN TRAVEL EXPENSE CLAIMS OF CERTAIN OFFICERS

UNDER REPEATED TRAVEL ORDERS, IN CONNECTION WITH AIR RACES

AT ST. LOUIS, MO., AND BRIDGETON, MO.

"1. RETURNED.

"2. THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AUTHORIZED PARTICIPATION BY THE NAVY IN THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES, 1923.

"3. THESE RACES WERE HELD AT THE FLYING FIELD, BRIDGETON, MO.

"4. BRIDGETON, MO., IS A TOWN OF ABOUT ONE HUNDRED INHABITANTS.

"5. THERE ARE NO HOTELS, BOARDING HOUSES, OR OTHER LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR VISITORS IN BRIDGETON, MO., AND THOSE NEAREST ARE SITUATED IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MO.

"6. BRIDGETON MAY BE REACHED FROM ST. LOUIS VIA RAILROAD TO ANGLUM, MO.; THENCE BY FOOT TO BRIDGETON. A STREET-CAR LINE FROM ST. LOUIS TO BRIDGETON WAS CONST*UCTED JUST PRIOR TO THE RACES; AND PUT INTO OPERATION ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE RACES.

"7. DUE TO THE LACK OF HOUSING FACILITIES IN BRIDGETON ALL OFFICERS CONNECTED WITH THE RACING DETAIL NECESSARILY HAD TO LIVE IN ST. LOUIS AND PERFORM TRAVEL EACH DAY TO AND FROM BRIDGETON.

"8. FOOD FOR LUNCHEONS WAS BOUGHT IN ST. LOUIS, PREPARED AND COOKED AT THE FLYING FIELD IN BRIDGETON. DRINKING WATER AT THE FIELD HAVING BEEN PRONOUNCED BY PHYSICIANS AS UNSUITABLE FOR DRINKING PURPOSES, WATER WAS HAULED FROM ANGLUM, MO.

"9. THERE ARE NEITHER HOTELS NOR BOARDING HOUSES IN ANGLUM, MO.

"10. LIEUTENANT B. R. HOLCOMBE, U.S.N., AND LIEUTENANT JAMES FELLIS (SC), U.S.N., WERE SENT TO BRIDGETON, MO., ABOUT FOUR WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE RACES UNDER ORDERS TO MAKE ALL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION BY THE NAVY IN THE RACES; TO REPRESENT THE NAVY ON THE BOARD OF THE ST. LOUIS AERONAUTICAL ORGANIZATION, UNDER WHOSE AUSPICES THE RACES WERE HELD; TO RECEIVE, COLLECT, AND PURCHASE ALL NECESSARY MATERIAL, AND TO SUPERVISE THE ASSEMBLY AND ERECTION OF ALL NAVY PLANES ENTERED IN THE RACES. REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN BRIDGETON AND ST. LOUIS, MO., WAS THEREFORE, NECESSARY IN THE EXECUTION OF THEIR DUTIES, IN ADDITION TO THE NECESSITY OF LIVING IN ST. LOUIS. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT EACH OF THESE OFFICERS MADE IN EXCESS OF SEVENTY-FIVE ROUND TRIPS BETWEEN BRIDGETON AND ST. LOUIS, MO.

"/SGD.) W. A. MOFFETT,

"REAR ADMIRAL, U.S.N.,

"CHIEF OF BUREAU OF AERONAUTICS.'

AS TO THE STATUTORY RIGHT OF LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE AND OTHER OFFICERS DETAILED WITH HIM TO THE INTERNATIONAL AIR RACES TO BE REIMBURSED FOR LIVING EXPENSES WHILE ON THIS DUTY, THIS RIGHT HAS ALWAYS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL. THE MOST RECENT DECISION RECEIVED IN THIS CONNECTION IS THAT RENDERED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL JANUARY 2, 1925; NO. A-6677, IN THE CASE OF CAPTAIN H. R. STANFORD (CEC), U.S.N., WHO WAS ON DUTY IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND WAS ORDERED TO FORT WORTH TEXAS, AND TO PERFORM REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN FORT WORTH AND OTHER POINTS IN THAT VICINITY.

WHILE THE MAIN QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS DECISION WAS WHETHER PAYMENT COULD BE MADE ON A MILEAGE BASIS, IN LIEU OF ACTUAL EXPENSES ONLY ONE ROUND TRIP BEING PERFORMED, THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED THEREIN WAS THAT AN OFFICER ON DUTY IN WASHINGTON AND ORDERED TO ANOTHER POINT FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AND WHO PERFORMED REPEATED TRAVEL FROM HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION TO OTHER POINTS WAS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT.

THE RIGHT OF AN OFFICER TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPEATED TRAVEL FROM TEMPORARY DUTY STATIONS WAS ALSO OUTLINED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IN 2 COMP. GEN. 673, WHEREIN IT IS STATED:

"AN OFFICER IS NOT IN A TRAVEL STATUS AFTER ARRIVAL AT A TEMPORARY DUTY STATION AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANY EXPENSES OF SUBSISTENCE AT SUCH TEMPORARY DUTY STATION. ORDERS TO TRAVEL REPEATEDLY FROM AND RETURN TO HIS TEMPORARY DUTY STATION MAY BE ISSUED TO HIM, AS ARE ORDERS TO HIM TO TRAVEL REPEATEDLY FROM AND RETURN TO HIS PERMANENT STATION; THAT IS, WHETHER THE DUTY STATION IS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT IS NOT MATERIAL IN THIS CONNECTION.'

THOUGH THE ORDER DIRECTING LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE TO DUTY WITH THE NAVAL AIR DETAIL CONTAINED THE FORMULA "THIS IS AN ADDITION TO YOUR PRESENT DUTIES" IT MAY BE READILY SEEN THAT WHILE ON DUTY AT ST. LOUIS AND BRDIGETON, MO., THE OFFICER HAD NO DUTIES TO PERFORM IN WASHINGTON, D.C. HIS DUTIES AT THE FORMER PLACES CONSTITUTED TEMPORARY DUTY AND WERE NOT INCIDENTAL TO TRAVEL. 26 MS. COMP. GEN. 742, OCTOBER 17, 1923.

THE ORDERS DIRECTED THE OFFICER TO REPORT AT BRIDGETON, MO., AND TO PERFORM REPEATED TRAVEL TO AND FROM ST. LOUIS; YET, IT IS ADMITTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW THAT THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE AIR DETAIL HAD HIS HEADQUARTERS IN THE OFFICES OF THE ST. LOUIS AERONAUTIC CORPORATION IN THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BUILDING IN ST. LOUIS, AND THAT LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE HAD VERY IMPORTANT ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES TO PERFORM AT THOSE HEADQUARTERS. THE RULE IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE TERMS OF AN ORDER GIVEN FOR ANY PURPOSE CAN NOT DETERMINE THE CHARACTER OF TRAVEL OR OF SERVICE PERFORMED, BUT THAT QUESTION MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE FACTS IN EACH CASE. CURRY V. UNITED STATES, 47 CT.CLS. 393, 398; MCGOVERN V. UNITED STATES, 36 ID. 63; LEACH V. UNITED STATES, 44 ID. 132; DOYLE V. UNITED STATES, 46 ID. 181; MCCAWLEY V. UNITED STATES, 50 ID. 105.

A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE'S DUTIES WITH THE AIR DETAIL WAS NECESSARILY PERFORMED IN ST. LOUIS. THE TRAVEL EXPENSE VOUCHER, WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AS REQUIRED BY ART. 1812 (2), NAVY REGULATIONS, 1920, SHOWS THAT OF THE 35 DAYS, SEPTEMBER 6 TO OCTOBER 10, 1923, THE OFFICER WAS ON DUTY AT ST. LOUIS AND BRIDGETON, MO., HE HAD HIS BREAKFAST, LUNCHEON, AND DINNER IN ST. LOUIS ON 21 DAYS, AND ON THE OTHER DAYS HAD BREAKFAST AND DINNER AT THAT PLACE; IT FURTHER SHOWS HE MADE A TOTAL OF ONLY 17 TRIPS FROM ST. LOUIS TO BRIDGETON AND RETURN.

IT IS CLEAR THAT BOTH BRIDGETON AND ST. LOUIS WERE WITHIN THE FIELD OR AREA OF THE OFFICER'S TEMPORARY DUTIES. THE FACT THAT HIS STATION HAD TWO OFFICES DID NOT MAKE HIS STATUS THAT OF AN OFFICER ON DUTY AT TWO STATIONS; IT MERELY REQUIRED THE PERFORMANCE OF SCATTERED DUTIES AT HIS TEMPORARY STATION. THE ORDER DIRECTING REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN THE TWO OFFICERS DOES NOT SHIFT THE BURDEN OF MEETING THE OFFICER'S EXPENSES FOR SUBSISTENCE TO THE GOVERNMENT. HE WOULD HAVE INCURRED THESE EXPENSES IF THERE HAD BEEN BUT ONE OFFICE AT HIS TEMPORARY STATION. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT HIS SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN LESS HAD HIS DUTIES BEEN CONFINED EITHER TO ST. LOUIS OR TO BRIDGETON, MO. IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 628, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1924, 43 STAT. 250, 251, CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED THE ALLOWANCES IT DEEMED PROPER TO ASSIST AN OFFICER IN MEETING HIS EXPENSES FOR LODGING AND SUBSISTENCE WHILE ON DUTY AT EITHER A TEMPORARY OR A PERMANENT STATION. THOSE ALLOWANCES MAY NOT BE AUGMENTED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE ACT. COURSE, IF EXPENSE IS INCURRED FOR CAR FARE IN TRAVELING BETWEEN TWO OFFICES WITHIN THE FIELD OF AN OFFICER'S DUTY, HE MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR THAT EXPENSE; IN THE CASE OF LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE IT APPEARS HE WAS TRANSPORTED TO AND FROM BRIDGETON WITHOUT PERSONAL EXPENSE. SEE IN THIS CONNECTION 13 COMP. DEC. 390; THE CASE OF WILLETT, 78 MS. COMP. DEC. 1125, SEPTEMBER 29, 1916; THE CASE OF GRAY, 79 ID. 880, DECEMBER 16, 1916; AND THE CASE OF COTTEN, 1 D.M. COMP. GEN. 1162, MARCH 13, 1924. FOR AN APPLICATION OF THE SAME PRINCIPLE SEE 19 COMP. DEC. 17; 25 ID. 575; 1 COMP. GEN. 629. THE CASE IS EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THOSE DECIDED IN 2 COMP. GEN. 673 AND 41 MS. ID. 24, JANUARY 2, 1925, WHICH ARE CITED IN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW.

IT MUST BE HELD THAT PAYMENTS FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES MADE TO LIEUTENANT HOLCOMBE BY COMMANDER PYNE WERE WITHOUT AUTHORITY IN LAW AND THE SETTLEMENT WHEREIN CREDIT FOR THOSE PAYMENTS WAS DENIED IS ACCORDINGLY SUSTAINED.

III. A-5440. ADOLPHUS W. GORTON, LIEUTENANT, UNITED STATES NAVY.

LIEUTENANT GORTON HAS SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THIS OFFICE HIS CLAIM FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES IN THE SUM OF $172, SAID TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY HIM DURING THE PERIOD JULY 24, 1923, TO AUGUST 14, 1923, INCLUSIVE. THAT SUM WAS PAID TO HIM BY CHECK NO. 14335, DATED JANUARY 7, 1924, BUT BY SETTLEMENT NO. M-8688-N, DATED JULY 16, 1924, CREDIT THEREFOR WAS DENIED IN THE DISBURSING ACCOUNT OF COMMANDER F. G. PYNE, NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER, AND A CHARGE FOR THE AMOUNT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ENTERED IN CLAIMANT'S ACCOUNT BY LIEUT. R. A. VOLLBRECHT (S.C.), UNITED STATES NAVY, UNITED STATES NAVAL AIR STATION, ANACOSTIA, D.C., SEPTEMBER 15, 1924.

WHILE IT IS PRESENTED IRREGULARLY, THERE IS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION AT HAND TO PERMIT OF A FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CLAIM.

OF THE SUM CLAIMED, $2.75 IS FOR "DINNER" AND "SUPPER AT WASHINGTON, D.C., " ON JULY 30, 1923, AND THE BALANCE IS FOR EXPENSE INCURRED FOR LODGING, MEALS, TIPS, ETC., AT PHILADELPHIA, PA., WHILE THE OFFICER WAS ON "TEMPORARY DUTY" AT THAT PLACE "IN CONNECTION WITH THE TESTS OF THE NAVY NW-1 RACING PLANE," UNDER ORDERS DATED JULY 2, 1923. THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED CLAIMANT AT HIS PERMANENT DUTY STATION, NAVAL AIR STATION, ANACOSTIA, D.C., BUT CLEARLY ENJOINED THE PERFORMANCE OF NO DUTY AT THE PERMANENT STATION WHILE ON DUTY AT THE TEMPORARY STATION. REPEATED TRAVEL WAS NEITHER AUTHORIZED NOR DIRECTED IN THE ORDERS. UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY AT PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND WHEN DIRECTED BY THE COMMANDANT FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT, HE WAS TO PROCEED TO NEW YORK, N.Y., AND TO TAKE PASSAGE TO SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND, VIA THE STEAMSHIP LEVIATHAN, SAILING ON OR ABOUT AUGUST 18, 1923.

UNDER DATE OF JULY 10, 1923, THERE WAS ISSUED TO CLAIMANT AN ORDER IN THE CUSTOMARY FORM PURPORTING TO BE SIGNED BY DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, WHICH ORDER AFTER SETTING OUT THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAD DETERMINED THAT REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND WASHINGTON, D.C., WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, AUTHORIZED THE PERFORMANCE OF SUCH TRAVEL AS SHOULD BE NECESSARY "IN CONNECTION WITH MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE SCHNEIDER CUP RACES," IN WHICH CLAIMANT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TO PARTICIPATE, AND AUTHORIZED REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE ORDER, NOT EXCEEDING $7 PER DAY. IN AN INDORSEMENT ON HIS ORDERS, CLAIMANT CERTIFIES HE REPORTED TO THE COMMANDANT FOURTH NAVAL DISTRICT, AT 9 A.M. JULY 24, 1923, AND TO MANAGER NAVAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY, AT 9.30 A.M. THE SAME DATE; HE LEFT PHILADELPHIA, PA., AT 9 A.M. JULY 30, 1923, AND ARRIVED AT ANACOSTIA, D.C., AT 12.30 P.M.; LEFT ANACOSTIA, D.C., AT 8 P.M. AND ARRIVED IN PHILADELPHIA, PA., AT 11.40 P.M. SAME DATE. THE TEMPORARY DUTY AT PHILADELPHIA WAS COMPLETED AUGUST 14, 1923, AND CLAIMANT DEPARTED THAT PLACE AT 3 P.M., ARRIVING AT ANACOSTIA, D.C., AT 6.45 P.M. THE SAME DATE, THOUGH HE WAS NOT FORMALLY DETACHED UNTIL AUGUST 17, 1923, WHEN IT APPEARS HE WAS EN ROUTE TO NEW YORK CITY. THE ORDERS OF JULY 2, 1923, DIRECTED HIM TO PROCEED TO THE LATTER PLACE FOR OTHER DUTIES UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY AT PHILADELPHIA, AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE ORDERS THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM TO RETURN TO ANACOSTIA, D.C., BEFORE PROCEEDING TO NEW YORK, N.Y.

IN HIS LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1924, PRESENTING HIS CLAIM, LIEUTENANT GORTON EXPLAINS HIS TRIPS TO ANACOSTIA AS FOLLOWS:

DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, FLIGHT AND GROUND TESTS OF THE NW-2 SEAPLANE, TOGETHER WITH SPEED RUNS AND RADIATOR TESTS WERE BEING CONDUCTED AT THE NAVAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY IN PHILADELPHIA. THE PROPELLER FOR THIS PLANE WAS SENT TO ANACOSTIA, D.C., FOR TESTING AND BALANCING, AND WHIRLING TESTS. MY PRESENCE AT THESE TESTS, INASMUCH AS I WAS DETAILED AS THE PILOT OF THE PLANE, WAS OBVIOUSLY NECESSARY AT BOTH PLACES. JUST PRIOR TO MY SAILING FOR ENGLAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE RACING OF THIS PLANE, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR ME TO AGAIN RETURN TO ANACOSTIA TO FINISH UNCOMPLETED TEST WORK IN CONNECTION WITH MY REGULAR DUTIES AT THE AIR STATION AT THE LATTER PLACE. IT APPEARS, THEREFORE, THAT THE NECESSITY FOR THE REPEATED TRAVEL IS CLEARLY SET FORTH. * * *

IT IS NOTED CLAIMANT REFERS TO SEAPLANE NW-2, WHEREAS HIS ORDERS OF JULY 2, 1923, REFER TO RACING PLANE NW-1, BUT THE DISCREPANCY IS NOT REGARDED AS OF CONSEQUENCE FOR PURPOSE OF THIS CONSIDERATION.

STATING THE SITUATION BRIEFLY, CLAIMANT REPORTED TO PHILADELPHIA, PA., JULY 24, 1923, UNDER ORDERS FOR TEMPORARY DUTY AND WITH AUTHORITY, IN CASE IT SHOULD BE NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH HIS DUTY, TO TRAVEL TO AND FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THE TEMPORARY DUTY HE MADE ONE TRIP TO ANACOSTIA, D.C., AND RETURN ON JULY 30, 1923, WHICH HE ASSERTS WAS NECESSARY AND REQUIRED BY HIS ORDERS.

IF THIS BE CORRECT HIS CLAIM IS NOT STRENGTHENED THEREBY. ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES MAY ONLY BE ALLOWED WHEN TWO OR MORE ROUND TRIPS ARE PERFORMED. WILLETS V. UNITED STATES, 38 CT.CLS. 534; 11 COMP. DEC. 43; 2 COMP. GEN. 72; 3 ID. 566. FURTHERMORE, IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED BY CLAIMANT THAT HE NECESSARILY PERFORMED REPEATED TRAVEL UNDER ORDERS TO AND FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO ALLOW HIM ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED AT HIS TEMPORARY AND PARAMOUNT DUTY STATION, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

THE ORDER UPON WHICH HE CHIEFLY RELIES TO SUSTAIN HIS CLAIM IS DATED OCTOBER 18, 1923. THIS ORDER ALSO PURPORTS TO BE SIGNED BY DIRECTION OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF NAVIGATION; IT EXPRESSLY REVOKED THE ORDER OF JULY 10, 1923, DECLARED THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY HAD DETERMINED REPEATED TRAVEL BETWEEN ANACOSTIA, D.C., AND PHILADELPHIA, PA., WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, AND AUTHORIZED CLAIMANT TO PERFORM SUCH TRAVEL AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH MATTERS CONNECTED WITH THE SCHNEIDER CUP RACES. THE ORDER BY ITS TERMS TERMINATED AUGUST 15, 1923, MORE THAN TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS ISSUANCE. MOREOVER, CLAIMANT HAD COMPLETED ALL DUTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CUP RACES AND RETURNED TO HIS PERMANENT STATION, ANACOSTIA, D.C., ON OCTOBER 15, 1923.

THERE IS AN UNSIGNED NOTATION ON THE VOUCHER UPON WHICH PAYMENT WAS TO CLAIMANT THAT APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR THE ALLOWANCES PAID IS CONTAINED IN ABSTRACT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE NAVY DISBURSING OFFICER FOR THE THIRD QUARTER, 1924, BUT THIS IS IMMATERIAL.

THE ORDER OF OCTOBER 18, 1923, INTENDED TO CREATE FOR CLAIMANT A DUTY STATUS WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN FACT; TO RECOGNIZE HIM AS HAVING BEEN ASSIGNED TO DUTY AT ANACOSTIA, D.C., THAT REQUIRED HIM TO PERFORM REPEATED TRAVEL TO AND FROM PHILADELPHIA, PA.; AND THUS THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO DEFRAY HIS SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD HE WAS ON TEMPORARY DUTY AT THE LATTER PLACE.

AS HEREINBEFORE STATED, THE PURPOSE OF THE SEVERAL ACTS AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO PRESCRIBE ACTUAL AND NECESSARY EXPENSES FOR REPEATED TRAVEL WAS TO PREVENT AN ABUSE WHICH HAD THERETOFORE EXISTED WHEREBY OFFICERS TRAVELING REPEATEDLY BETWEEN TWO STATIONS UPON A MILEAGE BASIS HAD PUT THE GOVERNMENT TO UNWARRANTED EXPENSE. FOR 25 YEARS THE PURPOSE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN PRACTICE, AND THAT PRACTICE WILL NOT BE SUBVERTED AT THIS LATE DATE BY ADMITTING THE VALIDITY OF AN ORDER ISSUED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ORDER OF OCTOBER 18, 1923, WAS ISSUED TO CLAIMANT.

BY DECISION RENDERED OCTOBER 17, 1923, 26 MS. COMP. GEN. 742, IT WAS HELD THAT CLAIMANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO TRAVELING EXPENSES OF $136.65 WHILE ON TEMPORARY DUTY IN PHILADELPHIA, PA., UNDER ORDERS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO HIS ORDERS OF JULY 2, 1923. SUCH DECISION CAN NOT BE OVERCOME BY THE ARRANGEMENT IN THIS CASE NOW APPEARING. FOR THE REASONS STATED, HIS CLAIM MUST BE DISALLOWED.