B-56855, MAY 10, 1946, 25 COMP. GEN. 772

B-56855: May 10, 1946

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

AN ARMY OFFICER'S WIFE WHO WAS AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY NURSE CORPS ON TERMINAL LEAVE AT THE TIME SHE PERFORMED TRAVEL INCIDENT TO HER HUSBAND'S PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A "DEPENDENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID ACT. REQUESTING DECISION AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON A VOUCHER SUBMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF MAJOR JOHN H. AS FOLLOWS: THE SUPPORTING PAPERS ATTACHED TO THIS VOUCHER SHOW THAT HIS DEPENDENT WIFE IS A ST LIEUTENANT IN THE ARMY NURSE CORPS AND THAT SHE WAS LOCATED AT CAMP KILMER. THE PORT OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE OFFICER WAS NEW YORK. HE WAS ASSIGNED TO FORT LEWIS. WASHINGTON FOR REST AND RECUPERATION AND WAS AGAIN ASSIGNED TO FORT MASON.

B-56855, MAY 10, 1946, 25 COMP. GEN. 772

TRANSPORTATION - DEPENDENTS - OFFICER'S WIFE MEMBER OF ARMY NURSE CORPS ON TERMINAL LEAVE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4 OF THE ACT, OF MILITARY, NAVAL, ETC., PERSONNEL OTHERWISE ENTITLED TO SUCH TRANSPORTATION UPON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, AN ARMY OFFICER'S WIFE WHO WAS AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY NURSE CORPS ON TERMINAL LEAVE AT THE TIME SHE PERFORMED TRAVEL INCIDENT TO HER HUSBAND'S PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS A "DEPENDENT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID ACT, SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO COL. CARL WITCHER, U.S. ARMY, MAY 10, 1946:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY UNDATED ENDORSEMENT YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 21, 1946, REQUESTING DECISION AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON A VOUCHER SUBMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF MAJOR JOHN H. HOLLIDAY, ENTERING CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL COST OF TRANSPORTATION OF HIS WIFE FROM SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., THE TRAVEL HAVING BEEN PERFORMED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER, AS FOLLOWS:

THE SUPPORTING PAPERS ATTACHED TO THIS VOUCHER SHOW THAT HIS DEPENDENT WIFE IS A ST LIEUTENANT IN THE ARMY NURSE CORPS AND THAT SHE WAS LOCATED AT CAMP KILMER, NEW JERSEY WHEN THE OFFICER RECEIVED ORDERS RETURNING HIM TO THE UNITED STATES FROM OVERSEAS. THE PORT OF ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES FOR THE OFFICER WAS NEW YORK, NEW YORK. HE WAS ASSIGNED TO FORT LEWIS, WASHINGTON FOR REST AND RECUPERATION AND WAS AGAIN ASSIGNED TO FORT MASON, CALIFORNIA FOR PROCESSING AND REASSIGNMENT AND WAS REASSIGNED TO WASHINGTON, D.C. HIS DEPENDENT TRAVELED FROM CAMP KILMER, NEW JERSEY TO CAMP BEALE, CALIFORNIA WHERE SHE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND TRAVELED TO HER HOME AT SEATTLE, WASHINGTON AND LATER TRAVELED TO WASHINGTON, D.C., THE OFFICER'S NEW PERMANENT DUTY STATION. THE WIFE'S TERMINAL LEAVE AS A NURSE EXPIRES 23 FEBRUARY 1946.

THE TRAVEL FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS CLAIMED WAS PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 21 TO 28, 1946, FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 17 OF JANUARY 21, 1946, WHICH TRANSFERRED MAJOR HOLLIDAY FROM FORT MASON, CALIFORNIA, TO WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR PERMANENT DUTY. YOUR DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF HIS WIFE'S TRANSPORTATION AS CLAIMED IS PREDICATED ON THE FACT THAT SHE WAS AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY NURSE CORPS ON TERMINAL LEAVE WHEN THE TRAVEL WAS PERFORMED. PARAGRAPH 1, SPECIAL ORDERS NO. 272, DATED OCTOBER 22, 1945, DIRECTING THE OFFICER'S WIFE, FIRST LIEUTENANT MARIAN M. HOLLIDAY, TO PROCEED TO HER HOME, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. FOL O, ANC ( ORC), ARE GRANTED LV OF ABS AND TVL TIME AS INDICATED EFF 22 OCT 45 AND WP HOME SO AS TO ARRIVE THEREAT NOT LATER THAN DATE OF EDCMR ON WHICH DATE DP O ARE HELD FR AD AND HONORABLY DISCH FR THE ANC NOT BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY. AUS APMTS HELD WILL CONTINUE IN FORCE DURING PERIOD PRESENT EMERGENCY PLUS 6 MONTHS UNLESS SOONER TERMINATED DP. O WILL BE GIVEN WD AGO FORM 53-98 TDN. PCS. PTA. 601-32 P 431- 102-03-07- 08 A 212/60425. AUTH. RF 1-5.

NAME ASR AMT OF LV HOME EDCMR

* * * * * * * * ST LT MARIAN M HOLLIDAY

89 4 MONTHS 9445 18TH AVE SW 23 FEB.

N 736241 NO 2 DAYS TVL SEATTLE, WASH 46

SECTION 12 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 16, 1942, 56 STAT. 364, 365, PROVIDES THAT AN OFFICER HAVING DEPENDENTS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 4 OF THAT ACT, 56 STAT. 361, SHALL, WHEN ORDERED TO MAKE A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION, BE FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION FOR SUCH DEPENDENTS TO HIS NEW STATION. SECTION 4 OF THE ACT DEFINES THE TERM "DEPENDENT" AS INCLUDING AT ALL TIMES AND IN ALL PLACES A LAWFUL WIFE. A SIMILAR DEFINITION OF THE TERM "DEPENDENT" WAS CONTAINED IN SECTION 4 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, STAT. 627. THUS, UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF THE CITED STATUTES THE DEPENDENCY OF A LAWFUL WIFE IS PRESUMED AND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR PURPOSES OF ALLOWANCES AND TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS PROVIDED FOR THEREIN. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN HELD IN DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE THAT AN OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO INCREASED RENTAL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES OR QUARTERS ALLOWANCE UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 16, 1942, SUPRA, ON ACCOUNT OF A LAWFUL WIFE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE WOMEN'S ARMY CORPS. 23 COMP. GEN. 109; ID. 216. ALSO, SEE ROBEY V. UNITED STATES, 71 C.1CLS. 561, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN OFFICER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INCREASED ALLOWANCES FOR A LAWFUL WIFE UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, SUPRA, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN IN THAT CASE. UNDER THE ORDERS OF OCTOBER 22, 1945, LIEUTENANT HOLLIDAY REMAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY AS AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY NURSE CORPS UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1946, WITH THE FULL PAY AND ALLOWANCES PROVIDED BY LAW FOR AN OFFICER OF HER RANK. SHE WAS SUBJECT TO MILITARY LAWS AND REGULATIONS DURING THE PERIOD OF LEAVE GRANTED IN THE ORDERS, AND BY MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF SUCH ORDERS SHE COULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO PERFORM FURTHER ACTIVE DUTY AND TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY TRAVEL IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. HER STATUS DURING THE PERIOD OF LEAVE GRANTED IN THE SAID ORDERS WAS, THEREFORE, INSOFAR AS THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS CONCERNED, THE SAME AS THAT OF ANY OFFICER OF THE ARMY NURSE CORPS ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A LEAVE STATUS.

THE PRINCIPLES STATED IN THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS WITH RESPECT TO AN OFFICER'S RIGHT TO INCREASED RENTAL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES OR QUARTERS ALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF A LAWFUL WIFE WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES APPEAR TO BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE QUESTION OF HIS RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION OF A LAWFUL WIFE UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS. IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT THE STATUTES PROVIDING FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL MAY NOT BE VIEWED AS CONTEMPLATING OR INTENDING THE INCLUSION OF AN OFFICER'S WIFE IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "DEPENDENT" WHERE THE WIFE ALSO IS AN OFFICER ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE MILITARY SERVICE AND ENTITLED TO TRANSPORTATION AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE IN HER OWN RIGHT WHEN ORDERED TO TRAVEL IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHER WHICH, TOGETHER WITH ALL OTHER PAPERS SUBMITTED, WILL BE RETAINED IN THIS OFFICE.