B-43217, APRIL 5, 1945, 24 COMP. GEN. 719

B-43217, APRIL 5, 1945, 24 COMP. GEN. 719

MILEAGE - MARINE CORPS OFFICERS - TRAVEL TO, FROM, OR BETWEEN HOSPITALS MARINE CORPS OFFICERS TRAVELING UNDER ORDERS TO, FROM, OR BETWEEN HOSPITALS--- OTHER THAN AS PATIENTS ON HOSPITAL TRAINS OR WHEN PROVIDED SUBSISTENCE FACILITIES BY THE GOVERNMENT--- FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OR OBSERVATION MAY BE REGARDED AS TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MILEAGE LAWS SO AS TO BE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER SUCH OFFICERS ARE ACCOMPANIED BY MEDICAL ATTENDANTS OR ARE DIRECTED TO TRAVEL IN CHARGE OF ATTENDANTS. 24 COMP. GEN. 115, MODIFIED.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL YATES TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, APRIL 5, 1945:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 5, 1944, TRANSMITTING A LETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU BY THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS, SEPTEMBER 25, 1944, AND REQUESTING A RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION DATED AUGUST 12, 1944, 24 COMP. GEN. 115, HOLDING THAT TWO MARINE CORPS OFFICERS--- SECOND LIEUTENANT BERNARD POLIAKOFF AND FIRST LIEUTENANT JAMES D. SMITH--- WERE NOT ENTITLED TO MILEAGE UNDER THEIR TRAVEL ORDERS OF JULY 23, 1943, AND SEPTEMBER 22, 1943, RESPECTIVELY, TRANSFERRING THEM FROM THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, BETHESDA, MARYLAND.

THE LETTER FROM THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, IN HIS DECISION B-43217, DATED 12 AUGUST, 1944, DENIED THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE IN THE CASES OF SECOND LIEUTENANT BERNARD POLIAKOFF, U.S. MARINE CORPS, AND FIRST LIEUTENANT JAMES D. SMITH, U.S. MARINE CORPS RESERVE, FOR TRAVEL PERFORMED FROM THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO THE NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, BETHESDA MARYLAND, PURSUANT TO DISPATCH ORDERS OF THIS HEADQUARTERS OF JULY 1943, AND SEPTEMBER 1943, RESPECTIVELY. THE RIGHT TO MILEAGE WAS DENIED IN THESE CASES ON THE GROUNDS "THAT OFFICERS TRAVELING AS PATIENTS FROM ONE HOSPITAL TO ANOTHER ARE NOT TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS ENTITLING THEM TO PAYMENT OF MILEAGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MILEAGE LAWS.' AND FURTHER, THAT "NO DUTY IS REQUIRED OF THE OFFICER WHEN SO TRANSFERRED, AND WHILE IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE TRAVEL INVOLVED IS IN SOME RESPECTS IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, IT SEEMS EVIDENT THAT TRAVEL UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, PRIMARILY, IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OFFICER AND IS NOT TRAVEL PROPERLY TO BE CONSIDERED AS TRAVEL ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS ENTITLING THE OFFICER TO PAYMENT OF MILEAGE.' DECISIONS A-98567, DATED 21 OCTOBER; 1938, AND 25 COMP. DEC. 97, WERE CITED IN SUPPORT OF THIS RULING. HOWEVER, THESE DECISIONS DID NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF AN OFFICER OF THE MARINE CORPS TO MILEAGE, SINCE THEY WERE BASED SOLELY UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE ONLY WHEN TRAVELING "ON DUTY.' IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL BE REQUESTED TO REVIEW HIS DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND LAWS HEREAFTER SET FORTH.

2. THE RECORDS SHOW THAT PURSUANT TO DISPATCH ORDERS OF THIS HEADQUARTERS (DISPATCH NUMBER 172038 OF JULY 1943), THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN COMMAND, U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER THE DATE OF 23 JULY, 1943 (COPY ATTACHED), ISSUED ORDERS TO SECOND LIEUTENANT BERNARD POLIAKOFF, U.S. MARINE CORPS, TRANSFERRING HIM FROM THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO THE NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, BETHESDA, MARYLAND. THE PERTINENT PART OF THE DISPATCH ORDERS OF THIS HEADQUARTERS IS QUOTED IN PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE ORDERS DATED 23 JULY, 1943. THE ENDORSEMENTS ON THE ATTACHED COPY OF ORDERS, DATED 23 JULY, 1943, SHOW THAT LIEUTENANT POLIAKOFF REPORTED AND WAS ADMITTED FOR TREATMENT AT THE NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, BETHESDA, MARYLAND, ON 27 JULY, 1943; THAT HE WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NO. N 2,250,108, AND THAT HE WAS FURNISHED PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NO. N-2,250,111.

3. THE RECORDS SHOW THAT PURSUANT TO DISPATCH ORDERS OF THIS HEADQUARTERS (DISPATCH NUMBER 1062107 OF SEPTEMBER 1943) THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN COMMAND, NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, UNDER DATE OF 22 SEPTEMBER, 1943 (COPY ATTACHED), ISSUED ORDERS TO FIRST LIEUTENANT JAMES D. SMITH, U.S. MARINE CORPS RESERVE, TRANSFERRING HIM FROM THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, TO THE NAVAL MEDICAL CENTER, BETHESDA, MARYLAND, ON 26 SEPTEMBER, 1943. WHILE THE ATTACHED COPIES OF ORDERS ARE NOT SO ENDORSED, THE RECORDS SHOW THAT FIRST LIEUTENANT SMITH WAS FURNISHED TRANSPORTATION FROM SAN DIEGO,CALIFORNIA, TO BETHESDA, MARYLAND, ON TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NUMBER N-2,845,277, AND THAT HE WAS FURNISHED PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS ON TRANSPORTATION REQUEST NUMBER N-2,845,278.

4. AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE, TWO ENLISTED HOSPITAL CORPSMEN WERE ASSIGNED AS ATTENDANTS TO EACH OF THE OFFICERS REFERRED TO HEREIN. IT IS FURTHER SHOWN THAT SECOND LIEUTENANT POLIAKOFF LEFT SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, ON 23 JULY, 1943, AND THAT ON THIS TRIP NINE HOSPITAL CORPSMEN (INCLUDING THE TWO ATTENDANTS ASSIGNED TO LIEUTENANT SMITH) WERE TRANSFERRED. BUT THERE IS NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE INDICATING THAT EITHER SECOND LIEUTENANT POLIAKOFF OR FIRST LIEUTENANT SMITH WERE TRAVELING WITH OTHER THAN THE TWO HOSPITAL CORPSMEN WHO WERE ASSIGNED TO EACH OF THESE OFFICERS AS ATTENDANTS. IT WOULD APPEAR, THEREFORE, THAT THE REMAINING HOSPITAL CORPSMEN WHO WERE TRANSFERRED EAST ON EACH OF THE TRIPS INVOLVED HAD NO CONNECTION WITH, AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRAVELING ON THE SAME ORDERS AS THE OFFICERS CONCERNED SO AS TO CONSTITUTE TRAVEL "WITH TROOPS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MILEAGE LAWS.

5. THE ACT ENTITLED "AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NAVAL SERVICE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE THIRTIETH, EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND NINETY- SEVEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," APPROVED 10 JUNE, 1896, 29 STAT. 361, AT PAGE 376, PROVIDES, IN SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, THAT:

"AND HEREAFTER OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS TRAVELING UNDER ORDERS WITHOUT TROOPS SHALL BE ALLOWED THE SAME MILEAGE AS IS NOW ALLOWED OFFICERS OF THE NAVY TRAVELING WITHOUT TROOPS.'

UNDER SECTION 1612, REVISED STATUTES, OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS RECEIVED THE SAME PAY AND ALLOWANCES AT THE SAME RATES AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS OFFICERS OF THE ARMY. BUT BY THE ACT OF 10 JUNE, 1896, SUPRA, OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS WERE PLACED ON THE SAME BASIS AS OFFICERS OF THE NAVY WITH RESPECT TO MILEAGE, AND SECTION 1612 WAS, BY IMPLICATION, REPEALED SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO MILEAGE. THUS THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH MILEAGE IS PAYABLE TO OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS TRAVELING UNDER ORDERS WITHOUT TROOPS IS GOVERNED BY THE BASIC ACT OF 10 JUNE 1896, APPLICABLE ONLY TO OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS; OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS TRAVELING WITH TROOPS ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1612, REVISED STATUTES, AND THE ARMY ACT OF 12 JUNE, 1906, 34 STAT. 246, 247. IN OTHER WORDS, AN OFFICER OF THE MARINE CORPS TRAVELING UNDER ORDERS WITHOUT TROOPS IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME MILEAGE AS IS ALLOWED AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY; BUT WHEN TRAVELING UNDER ORDERS WITH TROOPS, AN OFFICER OF THE MARINE CORPS IS ENTITLED TO THE SAME TRAVEL ALLOWANCE AS AN OFFICER OF THE ARMY TRAVELING WITH TROOPS. DECISION COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, DATED 7 MARCH, 1907; 13 COMP. DEC. 332.

6. WITH RESPECT TO THE STATUTES APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO OFFICERS OF THE NAVY, THE ACT OF 7 JUNE, 1900, 31 STAT. 685, PROVIDES:

"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; "

THE FOREGOING PROVISION OF LAW WAS RE-ENACTED IN IDENTICAL LANGUAGE IN THE ACT OF 3 MARCH, 1901, 31 STAT. 1029. IT APPEARS CLEAR, THEREFORE, THAT OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO TRAVEL "WHILE ENGAGED ON PUBLIC BUSINESS," ACT OF 16 JUNE, 1942, 56 STAT. 364, 365, FURTHER RESTRICTING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO TRAVEL "WITHOUT TROOPS.' TRAVEL UNDER ORDERS TO, FROM, AND BETWEEN HOSPITALS HAS HERETOFORE BEEN CONSIDERED AS TRAVEL "WHILE ENGAGED ON PUBLIC BUSINESS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE MILEAGE LAWS APPLICABLE TO OFFICERS OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS, AND THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED IN THE AUDIT BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

7. IN CONNECTION WITH THE DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO MILEAGE IN THESE CASES ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, DATED 8 OCTOBER, 1918, 8 BU. MEMO. 4674, IN THE CASE OF MAJOR PAUL E. CHAMBERLIN, U.S. MARINE CORPS, WHEREIN MILEAGE WAS ALLOWED BETWEEN THE NAVY YARD, MARE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA, AND WASHINGTON, D.C., UNDER ORDERS, DATED 17 JUNE, 1918, DIRECTING MAJOR CHAMBERLIN, THEN A PATIENT AT THE U.S. NAVAL HOSPITAL, MARE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA, TO PROCEED BY RAIL, ACCOMPANIED BY A MEDICAL OFFICER AND TWO MARINES AS GUARDS, FOR TREATMENT AT THE NAVAL HOSPITAL AT THE LATTER PLACE. SEE ALSO 8 COMP. DEC. 123, AND DEC. COMP. GEN. B-14776, DATED 29 OCTOBER, 1926, PUBLISHED IN 13 BU. MEMO. 9863.

8. IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION CONTAINED HEREIN ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, DATED 9 JUNE, 1930, 9 COMP. GEN. 505, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD, QUOTING FROM THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH THEREOF, THAT:

"WHAT IS A COMPETENT ORDER FOR THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE IN ANY OF THE SIX SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE JOINT PAY ACT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO EACH SERVICE. SECTION 12 (SEC. 12, ACT OF 10 JUNE 1922, 42 STAT., 631) BY ITS OWN FORCE, APPLIES TO ALL THE SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE ACT AND DOES NOT ASSIMILATE ANY OF THE VARIOUS SERVICES TO THE ARMY EXCEPT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION AS A CHARGE AGAINST MILEAGE ACCOUNTS. THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE IN THE ARMY, THEREFORE, DO NOT APPLY TO THE OTHER SERVICES, AND WHERE SUCH SERVICE NECESSARILY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE RULE IN THE ARMY. DECISIONS IN CASES ARISING IN THE NAVY ARE CITED. PRIOR TO THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, MILEAGE FOR OFFICERS OF THE NAVY, ACT OF MARCH 3, 1901, 31 STAT. 1029, WAS PAYABLE WHEN "TRAVELING FROM POINT TO POINT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES UNDER ORDERS," THE ACT OF JUNE 30, 1876, 19 STAT. 65, RESTRICTING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO TRAVEL "WHILE ENGAGED ON PUBLIC BUSINESS.' THIS GREATER LATITUDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE IN THE NAVY WAS PROBABLY DUE TO THE NATURE OF NAVAL ACTIVITIES AND THE LIMITED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES THE NAVY HAS ASHORE, JUST AS THE NATURE OF ARMY ACTIVITIES AND THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IT HAS ON LAND WERE PROBABLY THE BASIS FOR THER RESTRICTION IN PAYMENT OF MILEAGE IN THE ARMY. THE FACT THAT UNDER SECTION 12 THE BASIC NAVAL LAWS AND THE ANNUAL MILEAGE APPROPRIATION PERMIT PAYMENT OF MILEAGE TO OFFICERS OF THE NAVY TRAVELING TO, FROM, AND BETWEEN NAVAL HOSPITALS FURNISHES NO GROUND FOR MODIFYING THE RULE FOLLOWED IN THE ARMY WHICH IS BASED ON ARMY LAWS STILL IN EFFECT AND ON THE ANNUAL ARMY APPROPRIATION ACTS. * * * " (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

AS POINTED OUT BY THE COMMANDANT, THE DECISION OF AUGUST 12, 1944, APPLIED TO THE MARINE CORPS OFFICERS THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULE THERETOFORE APPLIED IN SIMILAR ARMY CASES, TO THE EFFECT THAT TRAVEL TO, FROM, AND BETWEEN HOSPITALS FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE DECISION OF JUNE 9, 1930, 9 COMP. GEN. 505, QUOTED, IN PART, IN THE COMMANDANT'S LETTER, SUPRA, SUCH RULE WAS NEVER HELD APPLICABLE TO NAVY OFFICERS, THEY BEING ALLOWED MILEAGE FOR SUCH TRAVEL, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ARMY AND NAVY IN THAT RESPECT BEING TRACED BACK TO DIFFERENCES IN PRIOR STATUTES AFFECTING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE IN THE RESPECTIVE SERVICES. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF AUGUST 12, 1944--- IN EFFECT APPLYING THE PRIOR ARMY RULE TO THE TRAVEL OF THE MARINE CORPS OFFICERS THERE INVOLVED--- THE QUESTION AROSE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUDIT OF ARMY MILEAGE VOUCHES, AS TO WHETHER CURRENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEFINITIONS PRESCRIBED THEREUNDER HAVE MODIFIED THE RULE THERETOFORE APPLIED.

THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 12 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 364, PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF A MILEAGE ALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 8 CENTS PER MILE TO OFFICERS OF THE VARIOUS ARMED FORCES WHEN "TRAVELING UNDER COMPETENT ORDERS WITHOUT TROOPS," AND THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE SECTION PROVIDES THAT THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED "MAY DETERMINE WHAT SHALL CONSTITUTE A TRAVEL STATUS AND TRAVEL WITHOUT TROOPS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE OR OTHER TRAVEL EXPENSES.' PURSUANT TO SUCH STATUTORY AUTHORITY THE SECRETARY OF WAR HAS DEFINED "TRAVEL STATUS" SPECIFICALLY AS INCLUDING "TRAVEL TO AND FROM A HOSPITAL FOR OBSERVATION AND TREATMENT.' SEE ARMY REGULATIONS 35-4820, CHANGES NO. 2, SEPTEMBER 13, 1943. SUCH STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEFINITIONS THEREUNDER HAVING NEGATIVED THE BASIS FOR THE PRIOR RULE, IT NOW HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT ARMY OFFICERS, THE SAME AS NAVY OFFICERS, PROPERLY ARE TO BE REGARDED AS IN A TRAVEL STATUS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LAWS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF MILEAGE, WHILE PROCEEDING UNDER ORDERS TO, FROM, OR BETWEEN HOSPITALS FOR OBSERVATION AND TREATMENT. THOSE CONSIDERATIONS REMOVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THERETOFORE REACHED IN THE DECISION OF AUGUST 12, 1944, WITH RESPECT TO SIMILAR TRAVEL PERFORMED BY MARINE CORPS OFFICERS. SEE MCCAULEY V. UNITED STATES, 50 C.1CLS. 105. CF. UNITED STATES V. PHISTERER, 94 U.S. 219. THE FURTHER QUESTION ARISES WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED PAYMENTS TO LIEUTENANT POLIAKOFF AND LIEUTENANT SMITH AS TO WHETHER AN OFFICER'S RIGHT TO MILEAGE IN CASES OF THAT CHARACTER IS AFFECTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE WAS ACCOMPANIED ON THE JOURNEY BY MEDICAL ATTENDANTS OR WAS DIRECTED TO TRAVEL IN CHARGE OF ATTENDANTS. THERE APPEARS NOTHING IN THE STATUTES OR REGULATIONS REQUIRING A DIFFERENT RULE IN SUCH CASES. PRIOR DECISIONS CITED IN THE COMMANDANT'S LETTER HAVE ALLOWED MILEAGE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE OFFICER TRAVELED IN CHARGE OF AN ATTENDANT. IN DECISION OF MAY 26, 1919, 25 COMP. DEC. 902, REAFFIRMING THE RULE DENYING MILEAGE TO ARMY OFFICERS PERFORMING SUCH TRAVEL ALONE WERE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE COST OF SUBSISTENCE EN ROUTE, BUT THAT OFFICERS TRAVELING IN CHARGE OF MEDICAL DEPARTMENT ATTENDANTS MIGHT BE REIMBURSED THEIR COSTS OF SUBSISTENCE SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION OF THE REGULATION AMOUNT CHARGED OFFICERS WHEN SUBSISTENCE IS FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON FOR ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO TRAVEL FOR WHICH MILEAGE IS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED. MILEAGE IS A COMMUTED ALLOWANCE FOR ALL EXPENSES OF TRAVEL, INCLUDING PULLMAN ACCOMMODATIONS, INCREASED COSTS OF SUBSISTENCE AND ALL INCIDENTAL EXPENSES OF TRAVEL, AS WELL AS DIRECT TRANSPORTATION COSTS, WHETHER SUCH EXPENSES ACTUALLY BE MORE OR LESS THAN THE ALLOWANCE. SUCH EXPENSES FOR THE OFFICER HIMSELF GENERALLY WOULD BE THE SAME WHETHER HE TRAVELS ALONE OR IN CHARGE OF AN ATTENDANT, AND NO CAUSE IF PERCEIVED FOR APPLYING A DIFFERENT BASIS OF ALLOWANCE ON THAT ACCOUNT. THE NECESSITY FOR ATTENDANTS AND THE EXPENSES OF THEIR TRAVEL ARE COLLATERAL ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, INDEPENDENT OF THE OFFICER'S RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL WHICH HE OFFICIALLY IS DIRECTED AND REQUIRED TO PERFORM; AND THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO LEGAL GROUND FOR CHARGING HIS MILEAGE WITH ANY PART OF THEIR EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT NO DIFFERENT RULE APPLIES AND THAT AN OFFICE'S RIGHT TO MILEAGE UNDER ORDERS DIRECTING TRAVEL TO, FROM, OR BETWEEN HOSPITALS, IS THE SAME WHETHER HE TRAVELS ALONE OR IS ACCOMPANIED BY ATTENDANTS. IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, OF COURSE, THAT WHAT IS SAID HEREIN HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF PATIENTS ON HOSPITAL TRAINS OR OTHERWISE WHERE FACILITIES FOR SUBSISTENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE PROVIDED, BUT ONLY TO CASES WHERE OFFICERS ARE DIRECTED BY COMPETENT ORDERS TO PERFORM TRAVEL TO, FROM OR BETWEEN HOSPITALS UNDER THE SAME GENERAL CONDITIONS AS OTHER TRAVEL ON A MILEAGE BASIS PROPERLY MAY BE AUTHORIZED.

THE DECISION OF AUGUST 12, 1944, IS MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY, AND THE TWO VOUCHERS THERE INVOLVED ARE RETURNED HEREWITH. IF OTHERWISE CORRECT, PAYMENT ON THE TWO VOUCHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONCLUSIONS HEREIN STATED WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED BY THIS OFFICE.