B-175116, JUL 3, 1972, 52 COMP GEN 3

B-175116: Jul 3, 1972

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

AT WHICH TIME HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A SUBSIDIARY OF A BOAT BUILDING COMPANY AND INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT. IS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION IN 37 U.S.C. 801(C) AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY TO AN OFFICER WHOSE ACTIVITIES FOR 3 YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLACEMENT OF HIS NAME ON THE RETIRED LIST CONSTITUTE "SELLING" TO THE GOVERNMENT. SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE 3-YEAR LIMITATION BEGAN TO RUN FROM THE DATE THE OFFICER'S NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST AND NOT FROM THE DATE HE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY. AS THE OFFICER WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY SERIOUS PROCUREMENT DISCUSSION PRIOR TO JULY 1. HE IS ENTITLED TO RETIRED PAY FOR THE 3-YEAR PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 1.

B-175116, JUL 3, 1972, 52 COMP GEN 3

MILITARY PERSONNEL - RETIRED - CONTRACTING WITH GOVERNMENT - PROHIBITION PERIOD - ACTIVE DUTY AFTER RETIREMENT EFFECT A NAVY OFFICER TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 6380 TO THE RETIRED LIST EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1967, BUT RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY AND RELEASED JULY 1, 1969, AT WHICH TIME HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A SUBSIDIARY OF A BOAT BUILDING COMPANY AND INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT, IS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION IN 37 U.S.C. 801(C) AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY TO AN OFFICER WHOSE ACTIVITIES FOR 3 YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE PLACEMENT OF HIS NAME ON THE RETIRED LIST CONSTITUTE "SELLING" TO THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE 3-YEAR LIMITATION BEGAN TO RUN FROM THE DATE THE OFFICER'S NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST AND NOT FROM THE DATE HE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY, THE RETIRED PAY FORFEITURE PERIOD TERMINATED JUNE 30, 1970, AND AS THE OFFICER WAS NOT INVOLVED IN ANY SERIOUS PROCUREMENT DISCUSSION PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1970, HE IS ENTITLED TO RETIRED PAY FOR THE 3-YEAR PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO JULY 1, 1967.

TO C. R. DAVIES, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, JULY 3, 1972:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 11, 1972(FILE REFERENCE XO:MTP:MLJ 7220/274 864), WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING AN ADVANCE DECISION WHETHER THE DESCRIBED ACTIVITIES OF LIEUTENANT COMMANDER FRED M. CLOONAN, U.S. NAVY, RETIRED, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE NORTHERN LINE MACHINE AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, CONSTITUTE "SELLING" WITHIN THE MEANING OF 37 U.S.C. 801(C), SO AS TO PROHIBIT PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND, IF SO, THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE 3-YEAR RESTRICTION PERIOD. YOUR REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSIGNED SUBMISSION NO. DO-N-1143 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE.

YOU SAY THAT COMMANDER CLOONAN WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE RETIRED LIST EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1967, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 10 U.S.C. 6380. COINCIDENT WITH HIS RETIREMENT, YOU SAY THAT THE OFFICER WAS RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR 2 YEARS AND SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASED THEREFROM ON JULY 1, 1969, WHEN PAYMENTS OF RETIRED PAY WERE INSTITUTED.

YOU REFER TO AN OPINION OF THE ACTING JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY DATED NOVEMBER 18, 1971, HOLDING, IN SUBSTANCE, THAT COMMANDER CLOONAN'S ACTIVITIES CONSTITUTE "SELLING," ETC., WITHIN THE MEANING OF 37 U.S.C. 801(C), AND THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT OPINION YOU SAY THAT THE OFFICER'S RETIRED PAY WAS SUSPENDED BEGINNING DECEMBER 1, 1971. IN THE EVENT WE AGREE WITH THE NAVY OPINION, YOU ASK FOR A RULING AS TO WHETHER THE 3-YEAR RETIRED PAY FORFEITURE PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN FROM JULY 1, 1967, THE DATE OF TRANSFER TO THE RETIRED LIST, OR JULY 2, 1969, THE DATE FOLLOWING HIS RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY. YOU ALSO ASK WHETHER THE FORFEITURE PERIOD IS LIMITED TO THE PERIOD HE WAS ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN "SELLING" ACTIVITIES OR WHETHER IT INCLUDES THE ENTIRE PERIOD COVERED BY THE CONTRACT RESULTING FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES, SUBJECT, OF COURSE, TO THE 3-YEAR LIMITATION.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT OF YOUR SUBMISSION, A LEGAL BRIEF WAS FILED HERE ON MARCH 21, 1972, BY THE FIRM OF HILL, CHRISTOPHER AND PHILLIPS, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON BEHALF OF COMMANDER CLOONAN. THE BRIEF TAKES ISSUE WITH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED OPINION OF THE NAVY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AND THERE WERE ENCLOSED SEVERAL DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE OFFICER'S RETIRED STATUS AND A DESCRIPTION OF HIS ACTIVITIES DURING HIS EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING HIS RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY.

BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 26, 1967, THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ADVISED COMMANDER CLOONAN THAT HE WAS SCHEDULED FOR "TRANSFER TO THE RETIRED LIST OF THE NAVY EFFECTIVE 1 JULY 1967," PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. 6380, AND THAT ORDERS WOULD BE ISSUED EFFECTING HIS RETIREMENT ON THAT DATE. THE LETTER FURTHER ADVISED HIM, HOWEVER, THAT IN VIEW OF SERVICE NEEDS AT THAT TIME HE HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED AND APPROVED FOR RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A "RETIRED STATUS" FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS. HE WAS TO NOTIFY THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL WHETHER OR NOT HE DESIRED AND VOLUNTARILY AGREED TO RETENTION ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A RETIRED STATUS UNTIL JUNE 30, 1969. THE RECORD CONTAINS A COPY OF A CERTIFICATE OF RETIREMENT FROM THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CERTIFYING THAT THE OFFICER WAS "RETIRED" FROM THE UNITED STATES NAVY ON JULY 1, 1967.

IT IS REPORTED IN THE LEGAL BRIEF THAT COMMANDER CLOONAN BEGAN HIS EMPLOYMENT AS GENERAL MANAGER WITH NORTHERN LINE MACHINE AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY OF TACOMA BOAT BUILDING COMPANY, INC., ON JULY 3, 1969. IT IS ALSO REPORTED THAT IN AUGUST OF 1969, AT THE REQUEST OF MR. ARTHUR MCCLINTON, HEAD SYSTEMS ENGINEERING STAFF, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, WASHINGTON, D.C., REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY TOURED THE NORTHERN LINE FACILITIES. WHILE COMMANDER CLOONAN ACCOMPANIED OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NORTHERN LINE ON THE TOUR OF THE FACILITIES, IT IS STATED THAT THE OFFICER WAS NOT PRESENT DURING DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF NORTHERN LINE SUBMITTING AN UNSOLICITED TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FOR WINCH MACHINERY ON THE USNS HAYES (T- AGOR-16). WE FIND NOTHING IN THE RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE AUGUST 1969 VISIT AT THE CONTRACTOR'S FACILITY RESULTED IN ANY SERIOUS PROCUREMENT DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVES AND THE RETIRED OFFICER.

THE RECORD CONTAINS A STATEMENT OF MR. ARTHUR T. MCCLINTON, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, DATED MARCH 18, 1971, CONCERNING HIS VISIT TO THE CONTRACTOR'S FACILITIES ON DECEMBER 30, 1970. AT THAT TIME, HE AND ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY WERE SHOWN AROUND THE PLANT BY MR. CLOONAN. AFTER RECALLING HIS PRIOR VISIT TO THE OLD NORTHERN LINE PLANT, MR. MCCLINTON STATES THAT "MR. CLOONAN, THROUGH HIS REPRESENTATIONS, WAS DEFINITELY ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE US TO PURCHASE NORTHERN LINE'S PRODUCTS." HE FURTHER STATES THAT "ALL SUBSEQUENT CONTACTS WITH THE COMPANY WERE THROUGH MR. CLOONAN WHO DID HIS BEST TO SELL US ON NORTHERN LINE'S GEAR."

THE FILE ALSO CONTAINS A STATEMENT DATED MARCH 18, 1971, FROM LIEUTENANT DONALD W. KONZ, THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATOR ON THE PROCUREMENT IN QUESTION, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

I, DONALD W. KONZ, LT SC USN, ACTING AS THE NRL CONTRACT NEGOTIATOR FOR SOLICITATION N00173-71-B-0007, AFFIRM THAT I HELD TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH FRED M. CLOONAN, REPRESENTING NORTHERN LINES MACHINE & ENGINEERING COMPANY, CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT DURING THE TIME BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1970 AND FEBRUARY 1971. THESE CONVERSATIONS, INITIATED BOTH BY MYSELF AND MR. CLOONAN, NUMBERED AT LEAST FIVE, AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROCUREMENT. AT ALL TIMES DURING THESE DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. CLOONAN WAS THE DESIGNATED COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE FOR ALL MATTERS OF THE PROCUREMENT.

A STATEMENT OF FACTS FURNISHED BY LIEUTENANT J. R. STAFFORD AS CONTRACTING OFFICER ON THIS PROCUREMENT, STATES ON PAGES 3 AND 4, IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

WHILE CONSIDERING WESTERN GEAR'S PROTEST TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER MADE IN ITS LETTER OF FEBRUARY 19, 1971, THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOUND THAT MR. CLOONAN HAD ALSO SIGNED A LETTER TRANSMITTING THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL OF TACOMA BOAT BUILDING IN RESPONSE TO STEP I (ENCLOSURE (5)). HE HAD ALSO SIGNED OTHER CORRESPONDENCE AND NEGOTIATED WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S BUYER AND TECHNICAL PERSONNEL ON CONTRACTUAL MATTERS (ENCLOSURES (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), AND (11)).

SECTION 801(C) OF TITLE 37, U.S.C. (FORMERLY 5 U.S.C. 59C) PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

PAYMENT MAY NOT BE MADE FROM ANY APPROPRIATION, FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER HIS NAME IS PLACED ON THAT LIST, TO AN OFFICER ON A RETIRED LIST OF THE REGULAR ARMY, THE REGULAR NAVY, THE REGULAR AIR FORCE, THE REGULAR MARINE CORPS, THE REGULAR COAST GUARD, THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, OR THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, WHO IS ENGAGED FOR HIMSELF OR OTHERS IN SELLING, OR CONTRACTING OR NEGOTIATING TO SELL, SUPPLIES OR WAR MATERIALS TO AN AGENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE COAST GUARD, THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, OR THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE-CITED PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE TERM "SELLING" IS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH I.C.2 OF INCLOSURE 3-C, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DIRECTIVE 5500.7, DATED AUGUST 8, 1967, TO MEAN:

A. SIGNING A BID, PROPOSAL, OR CONTRACT;

B. NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT;

C. CONTACTING AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF:

(1) OBTAINING OR NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS,

(2) NEGOTIATING OR DISCUSSING CHANGES IN SPECIFICATIONS, PRICE, COST ALLOWANCES, OR OTHER TERMS OF A CONTRACT, OR

(3) SETTLING DISPUTES CONCERNING PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT, OR

D. ANY OTHER LIAISON ACTIVITY WITH A VIEW TOWARD THE ULTIMATE CONSUMMATION OF A SALE ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL CONTRACT THEREFOR IS SUBSEQUENTLY NEGOTIATED BY ANOTHER PERSON.

WE HAVE HELD THAT THE EMPLOYMENT OF RETIRED OFFICERS IN NONSALES, EXECUTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS, INCLUDING CONTACTS BY A RETIRED OFFICER IN HIS CAPACITY AS A NONCONTRACTING TECHNICAL CONSULTANT WITH A NONCONTRACTING TECHNICAL SPECIALIST WHICH INVOLVES NO SALES ACTIVITIES, IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AND THE DOD DIRECTIVE. SEE 41 COMP. GEN. 784(1962); 41 COMP. GEN. 799(1962); 42 COMP. GEN. 87(1962); AND 42 COMP. GEN. 236(1962). HOWEVER, WHERE A RETIRED OFFICER ACTUALLY PARTICIPATES IN SOME PHASE OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, AS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE RECORD, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SUCH ACTIVITIES BRING HIM WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF SELLING AS DEFINED IN THE DOD DIRECTIVE. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, 42 COMP. GEN. 32(1962); 42 COMP. GEN. 236, 241(1962); AND 43 COMP. GEN. 408(1963).

IT WOULD SEEM FROM THE ABOVE-QUOTED STATEMENTS OF NAVY PERSONNEL WHO HAD DIRECT CONTACT WITH COMMANDER CLOONAN THAT THE OFFICER'S CONTACTS WERE NOT SOLELY LIMITED TO TECHNICAL MATTERS BUT RATHER INCLUDED "ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROCUREMENT." ON THE RECORD BEFORE US, WE REASONABLY MAY NOT CONCLUDE THAT HIS ACTIVITIES DID NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE AND THE DOD DIRECTIVE. THE QUESTION ARISES, HOWEVER, WHETHER THE 3-YEAR RETIRED PAY FORFEITURE PERIOD ACTUALLY HAD RUN BEFORE THE RETIRED OFFICER'S ACTIVITIES INVOLVING ANY PROCUREMENT BEGAN.

IN DETERMINING THE COMMENCEMENT DATE OF THE RESTRICTION PERIOD IN SECTION 801(C) OF TITLE 37, THE NAVY JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL IN OPINION OF NOVEMBER 18, 1971, INVOLVING COMMANDER CLOONAN'S CASE, TAKES THE VIEW THAT THE PERIOD BEGINS TO RUN FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY FOLLOWING THE PLACEMENT OF HIS NAME ON THE RETIRED LIST AND NOT FROM THE DATE HIS NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST. IN ARRIVING AT THAT CONCLUSION, THE OPINION STATES, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

*** SUBSECTION 801(C), READ LITERALLY, WOULD APPEAR TO BE INAPPLICABLE TO ANY SELLING ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY HIM AFTER 1 JULY 1970 - THREE YEARS AFTER SUBJECT OFFICER'S NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST, BUT ONLY ONE YEAR AFTER HE TERMINATED HIS ACTIVE-DUTY SERVICE. SUCH A RESULT IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF SUBSECTION 801(C) AND MAY BE LEGALLY ERRONEOUS IN LIGHT OF THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IN FIRST ENACTING SECTION 801(C) IN 1962. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS THE INTENT OF CONGRESS NOT TO SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE EXISTING LAW (SEE PUBLIC LAW 87-649, SEC. 12(A)(76 STAT. 497)(1962)). EXISTING LAW - THE SOURCE OF SECTION 801(C) - PROVIDED THAT THE PERIOD DURING WHICH A REGULAR OFFICER ON THE RETIRED LIST WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PAY FORFEITURE FOR SELLING ACTIVITIES WOULD BEGIN RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF "RETIREMENT," NOT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH HIS NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT "RETIREMENT," AS USED IN THE SOURCE LAW, WAS INTENDED TO MEAN "ACTUAL RETIREMENT," I.E., ACTUAL TERMINATION OF ACTIVE SERVICE.

SECTION 801(C) OF TITLE 37 WAS DERIVED FROM SECTION 1309 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATION ACT, 1954, 67 STAT. 437, WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN SECTION 59(C) OF TITLE 5, U.S.C. SECTION 59(C) AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1962, PUBLIC LAW 87-777, 76 STAT. 777, WHICH INCREASED FROM 2 TO 3 YEARS THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED THEREIN, PROVIDED THAT "NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE *** TO ANY OFFICER ON THE RETIRED LIST OF THE *** REGULAR NAVY *** FOR A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AFTER RETIREMENT ***."

IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION "DOES THE PHRASE 'FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER RETIREMENT' IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 7, 1953(5 U.S.C. 59C) LIMIT THE PERIOD OF PROHIBITION TO THE TWO YEARS COMMENCING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RETIREMENT," WE SAID THAT QUESTION WAS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SEE QUESTION 3 IN 38 COMP. GEN. 470, 474(1959). IN THIS CONNECTION, WHILE THE TERM "RETIREMENT" IS NOT DEFINED IN EITHER 5 U.S.C. 59C OR 37 U.S.C. 323(1958 ED.), IT IS OUR VIEW THAT IT RELATES TO THE FORMAL ACT OF INITIAL RETIREMENT UNDER STATUTES PROVIDING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A MEMBER'S "NAME" ON THE RETIRED LIST AND DOES NOT RELATE TO RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AFTER SERVICE ON ACTIVE DUTY AFTER RETIREMENT. CF. GORDON V. UNITED STATES, 134 CT. CL. 840(1956).

TITLE 37 OF THE U.S.C. WAS REVISED AND CODIFIED BY THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1962, PUBLIC LAW 87-649, 76 STAT. 451. IN EXPLAINING THE CHANGE IN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 801(C) THE CODIFIERS SAID - "THE WORDS 'HIS NAME IS PLACED ON THAT LIST' ARE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE WORD 'RETIREMENT' TO CONFORM TO THE WORDS 'ON ANY RETIRED LIST,' SINCE AN OFFICER MAY BE ON A RETIRED LIST UNDER CHAPTER 67 OF TITLE 10 WITHOUT BEING FORMALLY RETIRED." SEE PAGE A26 OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT NO. 1399, DATED MARCH 6, 1962, TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 10431 WHICH BECAME PUBLIC LAW 87-649.

IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE 3-YEAR PROHIBITION AGAINST PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY IN SECTION 801(C) OF TITLE 37 BEGINS TO RUN FROM THE DATE THE OFFICER'S NAME "IS PLACED ON THAT (RETIRED) LIST." HAD CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THE COMMENCEMENT DATE BEGIN TO RUN FROM A DATE OTHER THAN THE DATE THE OFFICER'S NAME IS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST, WE BELIEVE OTHER LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN USED.

COMMANDER CLOONAN'S NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1967, PURSUANT TO LAW (10 U.S.C. 6380), AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 37 U.S.C. 801(C) THE 3-YEAR RETIRED PAY FORFEITURE PROVISION IN HIS CASE TERMINATED ON JUNE 30, 1970. SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT PRIOR TO JULY 1, 1970, THE RETIRED OFFICER AND THE PROCURING AGENCY HAD ANY SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS RELATING TO PROCUREMENT, IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE RETIRED OFFICER'S ACTIVITIES DURING THE 3-YEAR PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE HIS NAME WAS PLACED ON THE RETIRED LIST MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE LAW AND THE DOD DIRECTIVE SO AS TO PRECLUDE ENTITLEMENT TO RETIRED PAY FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION. ACCORDINGLY, PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY TO THE OFFICER WHICH WAS SUSPENDED BEGINNING DECEMBER 1, 1971, MAY NOW BE RESUMED. SINCE PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED, NO ANSWER IS REQUIRED TO YOUR OTHER QUESTIONS.