B-145347, MAR. 31, 1961

B-145347: Mar 31, 1961

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE ACTING PUBLIC PRINTER REQUESTED OUR DECISION WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE OF YOUR OFFICE WHO WAS ALLOWED 15 DAYS' MILITARY LEAVE WITH PAY DURING THE PERIOD "MARCH 6. WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON MARCH 6. THE ORDERS WERE AMENDED ON JUNE 1. THE EMPLOYEE HAS FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE SHOWING HE "WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY FROM 6 MAR 60 THROUGH 15 JULY 60 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING ACTING DUTY TRAINING SCHOOL.'. HE WAS GRANTED AND PAID FOR MILITARY LEAVE MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 21. THE APPLICATION IS SAID TO BE BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 86-559. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PERIOD IS WHOLLY IN ONE CALENDAR YEAR. - EVEN THOUGH THE SECOND COURSE MAY HAVE BEEN SEPARATE FROM THE FIRST. SINCE THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN GRANTED 15 DAYS' MILITARY LEAVE WITH PAY FOR THE STATED PERIOD OF TRAINING DUTY THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

B-145347, MAR. 31, 1961

TO PUBLIC PRINTER, UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:

ON MARCH 15, 1961, THE ACTING PUBLIC PRINTER REQUESTED OUR DECISION WHETHER AN EMPLOYEE OF YOUR OFFICE WHO WAS ALLOWED 15 DAYS' MILITARY LEAVE WITH PAY DURING THE PERIOD "MARCH 6, 1960, THROUGH JULY 1, 1960," MAY BE ALLOWED AN ADDITIONAL 15 DAYS' MILITARY LEAVE WITH PAY FOR THE PERIOD "JULY 1 (2) THROUGH JULY 15, 1960.'

BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 26, 1959, THE EMPLOYEE, A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVE, WAS DIRECTED TO PROCEED ON MARCH 6, 1960, TO FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA, FOR ACTIVE DUTY TRAINING UNTIL JULY 1, 1960, AT THE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER SCHOOL (ASSOCIATE ENGINEER OFFICER ADVANCED COURSE). THE ORDERS WERE AMENDED ON JUNE 1, 1960, TO EXTEND THE TRAINING PERIOD TO JULY 15, 1960, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING THE "2 WEEKS PHASE OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS EMPLOYMENT OFFICER TRAINING.' THE EMPLOYEE HAS FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE SHOWING HE "WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY FROM 6 MAR 60 THROUGH 15 JULY 60 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ATTENDING ACTING DUTY TRAINING SCHOOL.' HE WAS GRANTED AND PAID FOR MILITARY LEAVE MARCH 7 THROUGH MARCH 21, 1960; ANNUAL LEAVE MARCH 22 THROUGH JUNE 2, 1960, AND LEAVE WITHOUT PAY FROM JUNE 3, 1960, THROUGH JULY 15, 1960. THE APPLICATION IS SAID TO BE BASED ON PUBLIC LAW 86-559, APPROVED JUNE 30, 1960, 74 STAT. 264, WHICH CHANGED THE GRANTING OF MILITARY LEAVE FROM A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS TO FISCAL YEAR BASIS.

IN 40 COMP. GEN. 186, A DECISION RENDERED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF PUBLIC LAW 86-559, SUPRA, WE SAID:

"WE CONSISTENTLY HELD, PRIOR TO THE CITED AMENDMENT, THAT AN EMPLOYEE MAY NOT BE GRANTED MORE THAN 15 DAYS' MILITARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE WITH PAY FOR ANY ONE PERIOD OF ACTIVE DUTY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE PERIOD IS WHOLLY IN ONE CALENDAR YEAR, OR EXTENDS OVER MORE THAN ONE CALENDAR YEAR. SEE 10 COMP. GEN. 116 AND 35 ID. 708. NO CHANGE IN THAT CONCLUSION WOULD BE WARRANTED BY REASON OF THE CHANGE IN THE LAW SO AS TO AUTHORIZE THE GRANTING OF MILITARY LEAVE ON A FISCAL RATHER THAN CALENDAR YEAR BASIS.'

WE DO NOT VIEW THE EXTENSION OF TRAINING DUTY IN THIS CASE--- EVEN THOUGH THE SECOND COURSE MAY HAVE BEEN SEPARATE FROM THE FIRST--- AS CONSTITUTING ANY BASIS FOR THE GRANTING OF ADDITIONAL MILITARY LEAVE BECAUSE OF THE BEGINNING OF A NEW FISCAL YEAR COINCIDENTAL WITH THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND PERIOD OF TRAINING DUTY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TWO PERIODS OF TRAINING DUTY WHICH OCCURRED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION MUST BE REGARDED AS ONE AND OUR DECISION QUOTED ABOVE WOULD BE APPLICABLE.

SINCE THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN GRANTED 15 DAYS' MILITARY LEAVE WITH PAY FOR THE STATED PERIOD OF TRAINING DUTY THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.