B-169541, OCT. 29, 1970

B-169541, OCT. 29, 1970

READJUSTMENT PAY - VOLUNTARY VS. INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION AFFIRMING PRIOR DECISION DISALLOWING CLAIM OF LT. MORRIS E. MANSELL, U.S.N.R., FOR READJUSTMENT PAY INCIDENT TO RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN THE NAVY. WHERE THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE ACT OF 1952 PROVIDES READJUSTMENT PAY TO A MEMBER WHO IS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY INVOLUNTARILY, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AS WELL AS PARAGRAPH 5, SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1900.7B MAKE CLEAR THAT AN INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERING FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF ACTIVE SERVICE CONTINGENT UPON ASSIGNMENT TO CERTAIN TYPE DUTY OR LOCATION, OR BEING TENDERED A SPECIFIC TYPE CONTRACT, IS NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE VOLUNTEERED FOR AN ADDITIONAL TOUR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO READJUSTMENT PAY. THEREFORE, WHERE CLAIMANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCEPT A ONE-YEAR VOLUNTARY EXTENSION OF HIS OBLIGATED SERVICE AND DECLINED, REQUESTING THAT HE REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY UNTIL HIS SERVICE COMMITMENT ENDED AND BE OFFERED ONE OF SEVERAL DUTY OPTIONS, THE READJUSTMENT PAY LAW FURNISHES NO BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF THE CLAIM.

TO LIEUTENANT MORRIS E. MANSELL:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1970, REQUESTS REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM FOR READJUSTMENT PAY INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE ON DECEMBER 2, 1969, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED JULY 10, 1970.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER OF THE REGULAR NAVY FROM AUGUST 31, 1962, TO FEBRUARY 1, 1967, AND AS AN OFFICER IN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE FROM FEBRUARY 2, 1967, TO DECEMBER 2, 1969. BY ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT EXECUTED FEBRUARY 26, 1965, YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR FLIGHT TRAINING UNDER THE NAVAL AVIATION CADET PROGRAM OF THE NAVAL RESERVE AND YOU AGREED, IF YOU SHOULD COMPLETE FLIGHT TRAINING AND BE IN ALL RESPECTS QUALIFIED, TO ACCEPT APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSIONED STATUS, AND TO SERVE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN A COMMISSIONED GRADE FOR A PERIOD OF THREE AND ONE-HALF YEARS AFTER COMPLETION OF FLIGHT TRAINING, UNLESS SOONER RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY. UNDER THAT AGREEMENT YOU SAY THAT YOUR OBLIGATED SERVICE WOULD HAVE EXPIRED ON JULY 31, 1970.

BY ORDERS DATED AUGUST 11, 1969, YOU WERE DETACHED FROM (OVERSEAS) DUTY WITH FIGHTER SQUADRON FIFTY THREE WHEN DIRECTED IN NOVEMBER 1969 AND YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED AND REPORT TO THE COMMANDING OFFICER, TRARON SEVEN, NAS, MERIDIAN, MISSISSIPPI, FOR FURTHER SERVICE. SUCH ORDERS INVOLVED A ONE-YEAR VOLUNTARY EXTENSION OF YOUR OBLIGATED SERVICE FROM JULY 31, 1970, TO JULY 31, 1971. YOU SAY THAT, EXERCISING YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DECLINE ORDERS WITH AN EXTENSION, THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL WAS ADVISED THAT YOU DID NOT DESIRE THESE ORDERS.

BY ORDERS DATED OCTOBER 16, 1969, YOUR ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 1969, WERE CANCELLED AND YOU WERE DIRECTED TO PROCEED TO CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES FOR SEPARATION PROCESSING PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 30, 1969. YOU SAY THAT THESE ORDERS WERE UNEXPECTED, SINCE YOU HAD NOT BEEN ADVISED OF ANY INTENTION TO RELEASE YOU FROM ACTIVE DUTY. BY MESSAGE DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1969, THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL WAS ADVISED THAT YOU DESIRED TO REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR ACTIVE DUTY OBLIGATION ON JULY 31, 1970, AND IF UNABLE TO REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY THAT YOU BE PAID READJUSTMENT PAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE C 15507, BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL MANUAL. PERMITTED TO REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY YOU REQUESTED ONE OF SEVERAL DESIGNATED DUTY OPTIONS "TO BEST UTILIZE F8 EXPERIENCE."

THE ORDERS OF OCTOBER 16, 1969, APPARENTLY WERE ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH A FORCE AND BUDGET REDUCTION IN THE NAVY WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE THE RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY OF SOME OFFICERS PRIOR TO THE END OF THEIR OBLIGATED SERVICE. INCIDENT THERETO A NAVAL MESSAGE CONCERNING THE OFFICER REDUCTION STATED:

" *** WHILE IT IS DESIRED THAT EACH OFFICER RECEIVE EQUITABLE CONSIDERATION, OPERATIONAL AND READINESS REQUIREMENTS PRECLUDE A SINGULAR APPROACH. ***

"IN THE INTEREST OF MAINTAINING A HIGH QUALITY NAVY OF THE FUTURE, OFFICERS WHO REQUEST AND ARE ACCEPTED FOR FURTHER SERVICE THROUGH AUGMENTATION, ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT OR AGREEMENT TO EXTEND FOR A NORMAL TOUR OF DUTY (IN NO CASE LESS THAN ONE YEAR BEYOND MINIMUM OBLIGATED SERVICE) WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED FOR SEPARATION UNTIL FINAL ACTION IS TAKEN ON THEIR REQUESTS BY THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL. *** "

BY MESSAGE DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1969, THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL STATED THAT YOU COULD NOT CONTINUE ON ACTIVE DUTY UNLESS YOU WOULD REQUEST EXTENSION OR AUGMENTATION OF YOUR ACTIVE DUTY OBLIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAVOP 36, 42 AND 46; THAT YOU DID NOT QUALIFY FOR READJUSTMENT PAY IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUEST FOR ACTIVE DUTY TOUR IN ACCORDANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 5 OF SECRETARY OF THE NAVY INSTRUCTION 1900.7B; AND THAT IF YOU DESIRED TO REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY (AFTER NOVEMBER 30, 1969), YOU MUST EXECUTE THE ONE- YEAR EXTENSION OF ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT OFFERED BY THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 1969. YOU WERE ADVISED ALSO THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AGREEMENT, YOU WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH NAVOP 36, 42 AND 46, 1969, WHICH RELATED TO REDUCTION IN THE NAVY OFFICER CORPS IN FISCAL YEAR 1970. BY FIRST ENDORSEMENT OF NOVEMBER 28, 1969, TO THE ORDERS OF OCTOBER 16, 1969, YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 2, 1969.

SECTION 265 OF THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE ACT OF 1952 AS ADDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 9, 1956, 70 STAT. 517, AND CODIFIED IN SECTION 687(A) OF TITLE 10, U.S. CODE, PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART AS FOLLOWS:

" *** A MEMBER OF A RESERVE COMPONENT OR A MEMBER OF THE ARMY OR AIR FORCE WITHOUT COMPONENT WHO IS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY INVOLUNTARILY, OR BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ACCEPTED FOR AN ADDITIONAL TOUR OF ACTIVE DUTY FOR WHICH HE VOLUNTEERED AFTER HE HAD COMPLETED A TOUR OF ACTIVE DUTY, AND WHO HAS COMPLETED, IMMEDIATELY BEFORE HIS RELEASE, AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF CONTINUOUS ACTIVE DUTY, IS ENTITLED TO A READJUSTMENT PAYMENT COMPUTED BY MULTIPLYING HIS YEARS OF ACTIVE SERVICE *** BY TWO MONTHS' BASIC PAY OF THE GRADE IN WHICH HE IS SERVING AT THE TIME OF HIS RELEASE. *** ."

SUBSECTION (H) OF SECTION 265 PROVIDED:

"(H) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM 'INVOLUNTARY RELEASE' SHALL INCLUDE RELEASE UNDER CONDITIONS WHEREIN A MEMBER OF A RESERVE COMPONENT, WHO HAS COMPLETED A TOUR OF DUTY, VOLUNTEERS FOR AN ADDITIONAL TOUR OF DUTY AND THE SERVICE CONCERNED DOES NOT EXTEND OR ACCEPT THE VOLUNTEER REQUEST OF THE MEMBER FOR THE ADDITIONAL TOUR."

WHILE THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF SUBSECTION (H) WAS NOT INCLUDED IN SECTION 687(A) AS ENACTED BY SECTION 102(A) OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 7, 1962, 76 STAT. 507, PUBLIC LAW 87-561, THE SENATE REPORT ON THIS CODIFICATION STATES THAT IN CODIFYING THE LAW THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN EXISTING LAW.

IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 5, SECNAV INSTRUCTION 1900.7B, DATED APRIL 2, 1969, FOLLOWED THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 265(H) AND PROVIDE IN PERTINENT PART:

"THE TERM 'INVOLUNTARILY RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY' AS USED IN REFERENCE (A) (10 U.S.C. 687), INCLUDES DISCHARGE AND ALL OTHER FORMS OF SEPARATION FROM ACTIVE-DUTY STATUS UNDER CONDITIONS WHEREIN THE INDIVIDUAL, UPON OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO COMPLETING A TOUR OF ACTIVE DUTY, VOLUNTEERS TO REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR AN ADDITIONAL TOUR BUT IS NOT ACCEPTED. INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERING FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERIOD OF ACTIVE SERVICE CONTINGENT UPON ASSIGNMENT TO CERTAIN TYPE OF DUTY OR LOCATION, OR BEING TENDERED A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CONTRACT, IS NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE VOLUNTEERED FOR AN ADDITIONAL TOUR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENTITLEMENT TO READJUSTMENT PAY. *** "

YOU SAY THAT THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL APPARENTLY CONSIDERED YOUR REFUSAL TO EXECUTE THE ONE-YEAR ACTIVE-DUTY EXTENSION AGREEMENT AS AN INDICATION THAT YOU WANTED A VOLUNTARY SEPARATION AND WERE THEREFORE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AT ANY TIME. YOU SUGGEST THAT YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY WAS INVOLUNTARY IN THAT YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY 8 MONTHS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR TOUR OF DUTY UNDER YOUR ACTIVE SERVICE AGREEMENT NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR REQUEST THAT YOU BE PERMITTED TO COMPLETE YOUR OBLIGATED SERVICE, AND THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A READJUSTMENT PAYMENT BECAUSE SUCH SEPARATION WAS AGAINST YOUR WISHES.

YOU ALSO SAY THAT THE 8-MONTH EARLY TERMINATION OF YOUR ACTIVE-DUTY DEPRIVED YOU OF THE ADDITIONAL FLYING EXPERIENCE YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE GAINED, THE INCOME YOU HAD PLANNED ON, AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT CONTINUING FURTHER ACTIVE SERVICE AT THE TIME OF THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR OBLIGATED SERVICE (JULY 31, 1970). YOU POINT OUT THAT WHEN THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 1969, WERE ISSUED YOU WERE NOT INFORMED THAT SEPARATION AT ANY TIME WAS CONTINGENT ON YOUR NOT ACCEPTING THE ONE-YEAR ACTIVE DUTY EXTENSION, AND THAT THE NAVY FORCED YOU TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT CONTINUING ON ACTIVE DUTY WHILE YOU WERE OVERSEAS WITHOUT MAKING THE ALTERNATIVES KNOWN TO YOU.

RULE 11 IN TABLE 4-4-6, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCES ENTITLEMENTS MANUAL, PROVIDES THAT READJUSTMENT PAY IS NOT PAYABLE WHERE THE RESERVE MEMBER VOLUNTEERS FOR A PERIOD OF ACTIVE DUTY CONTINGENT ON ASSIGNMENT TO CERTAIN TYPE OF DUTY OR LOCATION, OR BEING TENDERED A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CONTRACT.

WHILE THE ORDERS OF AUGUST 11, 1969, DID NOT PROVIDE FOR YOUR EARLY RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY, SUCH ORDERS OFFERED YOU A ONE-YEAR VOLUNTARY EXTENSION OF YOUR OBLIGATED SERVICE. YOU SAY THAT YOU DECLINED SUCH OFFER AND WHEN ADVISED OF YOUR EARLY RELEASE YOU REQUESTED THAT YOU BE RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR ACTIVE DUTY OBLIGATION ON JULY 31, 1970, AND BE OFFERED ONE OF SEVERAL DUTY OPTIONS. IRRESPECTIVE OF YOUR REQUEST THE RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT YOU DECLINED TO ACCEPT AN UNCONDITIONAL ONE-YEAR ACTIVE DUTY EXTENSION AGREEMENT OFFERED TO YOU BY THE NAVY, WHICH WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN YOUR NOT BEING RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY BY THE ORDERS OF OCTOBER 16, 1969.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE STATED REASON THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF 10 U.S.C. 687(A) SHOWS THAT WHILE RESERVE MEMBERS WHO WERE SERVING ON EXTENDED OR ADDITIONAL TOURS OF ACTIVE DUTY WERE TO RECEIVE READJUSTMENT PAY IN THE EVENT OF THEIR INVOLUNTARY RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY, MEMBERS WHO WERE SERVING IN A PERIOD OF LEGALLY OBLIGATED SERVICE (SUCH AS IS HERE INVOLVED) WERE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED ELIGIBLE.

YOU OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CITED PROVISIONS OF LAW AS A MEANS OF DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE CONGRESS, SINCE YOU VIEW SUCH PROVISIONS AS BEING PLAIN AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND THUS NOT SUBJECT TO BEING GIVEN WHAT YOU REGARD AS A DIFFERENT AND INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THOSE STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE PARTS OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SECTION 687(A), MENTIONED ABOVE, ARE NOT AT ODDS WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, BUT PROVIDE A MEANS OF DETERMINING AND GIVING EFFECT TO THE ACTUAL INTENT OF THE CONGRESS IN ENACTING SUCH LEGISLATION. IN THIS CONNECTION YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE CASE OF FOX V UNITED STATES, 151 CT. CL. 611 (1960), IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THAT BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF (WHO HELD A DUAL STATUS AS A RESERVE AND AS A REGULAR) WAS, IN THE SAME ORDERS RELEASING HIM FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS A COMMISSIONED RESERVE OFFICER, ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN THE REGULAR ARMY AS A WARRANT OFFICER, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE READJUSTMENT PAYMENT, SINCE THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE READJUSTMENT PAYMENT STATUTE INDICATES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT BENEFIT TO ACCRUE ONLY TO THOSE WHO WERE TO RETURN TO CIVILIAN LIFE UPON THEIR INVOLUNTARY RELEASE FROM MILITARY SERVICE.

THE COURT JUSTIFIED ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE READJUSTMENT PAY STATUTE ON THE GROUND THAT SINCE A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE WILL NOT JUSTIFY AN EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE STATUTE BEYOND THE OBVIOUS CONTEMPLATION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND A STRICT CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO DEFEAT THE CLEAR INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OR TO PRODUCE AN ABSURED RESULT UNLESS ABSOLUTELY UNAVOIDABLE, IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO ALL CONCERNED NOT TO LOOK TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE CONGRESS INTENDED THAT A READJUSTMENT PAYMENT SHOULD ACCRUE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED.

IN HENNEBERGER V UNITED STATES, 185 CT. CL. 614 (1968), AND 187 CT. CL. 265 (1969), THE PLAINTIFF, A RESERVE OFFICER, WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY UPON THE EXPIRATION OF HIS ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT (10 U.S.C. 679) EVEN THOUGH HE REQUESTED THAT HE BE OFFERED AN ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT FOR A FULL REGULAR TOUR OF ACTIVE DUTY. THE NAVY CONSIDERED HIM INELIGIBLE FOR SUCH SERVICE BECAUSE OF HIS "FAILED OF SELECTION" STATUS AND ALSO DENIED HIS REQUEST BECAUSE IT WAS "CONTINGENT UPON BEING TENDERED A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CONTRACT (E.G., ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT)," AND THEREFORE WAS NOT AN UNCONDITIONAL REQUEST FOR ACTIVE DUTY.

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE NAVY WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE OFFICER WAS REQUESTING, AND WOULD ACCEPT NOTHING LESS THAN, AN ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT. THE COURT ALSO CONSIDERED THAT HIS REQUEST WAS A CONDITIONAL ONE BECAUSE HE ASKED FOR AN ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT (WHICH WOULD BE FOR A PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF SERVICE AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 10 U.S.C. 679 AND 680 PRESCRIBING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENTS), RATHER THAN AN UNCONDITIONAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ACTIVE DUTY ON A NONCONTRACTUAL BASIS. THE COURT THEREFORE HELD THAT THE OFFICER'S RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY WAS A VOLUNTARY RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND NOT AN INVOLUNTARY ONE AND THAT HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A READJUSTMENT PAYMENT.

IT SEEMS CLEAR THAT YOU DID NOT UNCONDITIONALLY VOLUNTEER FOR THE ADDITIONAL ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE OFFERED TO YOU BY THE NAVY, AND THAT YOU IN FACT DECLINED TO ACCEPT SUCH ADDITIONAL DUTY. SINCE YOU WERE OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMAIN ON ACTIVE DUTY BY THE NAVY AND YOU DID NOT UNCONDITIONALLY ACCEPT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF YOUR ACTIVE DUTY OBLIGATION OFFERED YOU BY THE NAVY, IT IS OUR OPINION THAT YOU WERE NOT "INVOLUNTARILY RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS USED IN SECTION 687(A), SO AS TO ENTITLE YOU TO A READJUSTMENT PAYMENT. IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 265 OF THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE ACT OF 1952, ADDED IN 1956, AS STATED ON PAGE 2 OF SENATE REPORT NO. 2288, ON THE THEN PROPOSED LEGISLATION, H.R. 9952, AS FOLLOWS:

"THE BILL HAS A DUAL PURPOSE: (1) TO PROVIDE A READJUSTMENT PAYMENT TO RESERVISTS WHO, AFTER HAVING SERVED CONTINUOUSLY ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME, ARE INVOLUNTARILY RELEASED AT AN AGE AT WHICH THEIR USEFULNESS TO THE ARMED FORCES IS LESS THAN THAT OF YOUNGER OFFICERS WHO ARE NEEDED FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE SERVICE, AND (2) TO INDUCE RESERVE OFFICERS, BY PROVIDING SOME MEASURE OF ECONOMIC SECURITY, TO REMAIN VOLUNTARILY IN THE ACTIVE SERVICE AND THEREBY TO REDUCE EXPENSIVE PERSONNEL TURNOVER AND TO INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ARMED SERVICES THROUGH THE RETENTION OF COMPETENT AND EXPERIENCED OFFICERS." IN OTHER WORDS, THE PURPOSE OF THE READJUSTMENT PAY LAW IS TO ENCOURAGE RESERVISTS TO MAKE A CAREER OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE BY PROVIDING READJUSTMENT PAY TO CUSHION THE ADVERSE FINANCIAL EFFECTS OF AN INVOLUNTARY RETURN TO CIVILIAN LIFE IN THE EVENT SUCH CAREER IS TERMINATED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

THE ACTIVE DUTY AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY YOU ON FEBRUARY 26, 1965, COVERED A PERIOD OF BUT 3-1/2 YEARS AND NOTHING CONTAINED THEREIN INDICATES AN OBLIGATION ON YOUR PART TO PURSUE A CAREER OF ACTIVE DUTY AS A MEMBER OF THE NAVAL RESERVE. YOU ACTUALLY REFUSED A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF ACTIVE DUTY WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SO SERVE WAS OFFERED YOU. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE READJUSTMENT PAY LAW FURNISHES NO BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.

ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.