B-3016, JUNE 9, 1939, 18 COMP. GEN. 914

B-3016, JUNE 9, 1939, 18 COMP. GEN. 914

ARMY OFFICERS - LONGEVITY PAY - INCLUSION OF CADET SERVICE IN REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE CADET SERVICE IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE UNDER AN APPOINTMENT SUBSEQUENT TO AUGUST 24, 1912, MAY NOT BE COUNTED, BECAUSE OF THE PROHIBITION OF SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF THAT DATE, 37 STAT. 594, BY AN ARMY OFFICE FOR LONGEVITY PAY PURPOSES.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL BROWN TO LT. COL. W. M. DIXON, UNITED STATES ARMY, JUNE 9, 1939:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH OFFICE OF CHIEF OF FINANCE, YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 27, 1939, AS FOLLOWS:

ATTACHED HERETO IS A VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL CORNELIUS M. DALY, CAVALRY, COVERING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 1938, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1939, IN THE AMOUNT OF $239.98, FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY FOR OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE AND OVER 24 YEARS' SERVICE, AS A MAJOR FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 TO OCTOBER 31, 1938, AND AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 1938, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1939, WHICH HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE UNDERSIGNED, A DISBURSING OFFICER, FOR PAYMENT.

IN LETTER FROM THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO THE CHIEF OF FINANCE DATED FEBRUARY 4, 39,"SERV-0765315-HHR," IT WAS REPORTED THAT THIS OFFICER HAD BEEN OVERPAID BY REASON OF COUNTING SERVICE AS A CADET, REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916. A TOTAL AMOUNT OF THESE OVERPAYMENTS WAS REPORTED AS $1,723.51.

SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, PROVIDES IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"PROVIDED, THAT HEREAFTER LONGEVITY PAY FOR OFFICERS IN THE ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS, COAST GUARD, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, AND COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY SHALL BE BASED ON THE TOTAL OF ALL SERVICE IN ANY OR ALL OF SAID SERVICES.'

IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY (27 COMP. 315), THE UNDERSIGNED IS IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT OF THE ATTACHED VOUCHER IS AUTHORIZED AND YOUR DECISION IN THE MATTER IS RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED.

THE RECORD OF SERVICE OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DALY, AS SHOWN BY THE OFFICIAL ARMY REGISTER, 1938-39, IS: CADET, REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916; SECOND LIEUTENANT OF CAVALRY, NOVEMBER 30, 1916; FIRST LIEUTENANT, NOVEMBER 30, 1916; CAPTAIN (TEMPORARY), AUGUST 5, 1917; CAPTAIN, SEPTEMBER 2, 1919; MAJOR, FEBRUARY 11, 1929; AND LIEUTENANT COLONEL, NOVEMBER 1, 1938. THIS RECORD INDICATES THAT LIEUTENANT COLONEL DALY HAD 21 YEARS' ARMY SERVICE ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1938, AND COUNTING HIS SERVICE AS A CADET IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916, 2 YEARS, 3 MONTHS, AND 23 DAYS, HE HAD OVER 24 YEARS' SERVICE ON SEPTEMBER 1,1938. THE VOUCHER REPRESENTS DIFFERENCE IN PAY AND ALLOWANCES BETWEEN 21 AND 24 YEARS' SERVICE FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 1938, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1939. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER LIEUTENANT COLONEL DALY IS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR LONGEVITY PURPOSES FOR HIS SERVICE AS A CADET IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE FROM AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916.

STATUTES BEARING ON THE QUESTION AS TO THE EFFECT OF THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, QUOTED IN YOUR LETTER, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1902, 32 STAT. 100:

THAT THE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE SHALL HEREAFTER RECEIVE THE SAME PAY AND ALLOWANCES, EXCEPT FORAGE, AS ARE NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER BE PROVIDED BY LAW FOR OFFICERS OF CORRESPONDING RANK IN THE ARMY, INCLUDING LONGEVITY PAY.

SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 23, 1906, 34 STAT. 452 (SEC. 15, TITLE 14, U.S. CODE):

THAT HEREAFTER THE NUMBER OF CADETS OF THE LINE ALLOWED IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE SHALL BE SUCH AS TO PROVIDE FOR FILLING THE VACANCIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE GRADE OF THIRD LIEUTENANT IN SAID SERVICE: PROVIDED, THAT A PERSON TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT AS A CADET OF THE LINE SHALL PRODUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN EIGHTEEN NOR MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF APPOINTMENT, AND SHALL PASS A SATISFACTORY PHYSICAL EXAMINATION BY A BOARD OF OFFICERS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND MARINE HOSPITAL SERVICE, AND A SATISFACTORY EDUCATIONAL EXAMINATION, WHICH MUST IN ALL CASES BE WRITTEN AND STRICTLY COMPETITIVE, BY A BOARD OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, BOTH EXAMINATIONS TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: PROVIDED, THAT NO PERSON WHO HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR COMPELLED TO RESIGN FROM THE MILITARY ACADEMY OR FROM THE NAVAL ACADEMY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR HAZING, OR FOR ANY OTHER IMPROPER CONDUCT, SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT AS A CADET IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE: PROVIDED, THAT NO PERSON SHALL BECOME A CADET OF THE LINE WHO DOES NOT OBLIGATE HIMSELF, IN SUCH MANNER AS THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY MAY PRESCRIBE, TO SERVE AT LEAST THREE YEARS AS AN OFFICER IN SAID SERVICE AFTER GRADUATION, IF HIS SERVICES BE SO LONG REQUIRED: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY MAY SUMMARILY DISMISS FROM THE SERVICE ANY CADET WHO, DURING HIS PROBATIONARY TERM, IS FOUND UNSATISFACTORY IN EITHER STUDIES OR CONDUCT, OR MAY BE DEEMED NOT ADAPTED FOR A CAREER IN THE SERVICE.

SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 37 STAT. 594 (SEC. 684, TITLE 10, U.S. CODE):

THAT HEREAFTER THE SERVICE OF A CADET WHO MAY HEREAFTER BE APPOINTED TO THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY OR TO THE NAVAL ACADEMY SHALL NOT BE COUNTED IN COMPUTING FOR ANY PURPOSE THE LENGTH OF SERVICE OF ANY OFFICER OF THE ARMY.

SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF THE ACT OF JANUARY 28, 1915, 38 STAT. 801 (SECS. 2 AND 38, TITLE 14, U.S. CODE):

COMPUTATION OF LENGTH OF SERVICE GENERALLY.--- IN COMPUTING LENGTH OF SERVICE FOR ANY PURPOSE ALL CREDITABLE SERVICE IN THE ARMY, NAVY, MARINE CORPS, REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, AND LIFE SAVING SERVICE SHALL BE INCLUDED, COUNTING PART OF A YEAR AS A WHOLE YEAR WHERE STATIONS WERE OPERATED ONLY PART OF A YEAR.

LAWS RELATING TO LIFE SAVING SERVICE AND REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE MADE APPLICABLE TO COAST GUARD.--- EXCEPT AS THEREAFTER MODIFIED, ALL LAWS EXISTING JANUARY 28, 1915, RELATING EITHER TO THE LIFE SAVING SERVICE OR THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE SHALL REMAIN OF FORCE AS FAR AS APPLICABLE TO THE COAST GUARD, AND THE OFFICES, POSITIONS, OPERATIONS, AND DUTIES SHALL IN ALL RESPECTS BE HELD AND CONSTRUED TO IMPOSE THE SAME DUTIES UPON THE POSITIONS AND THEIR INCUMBENTS IN THE COAST GUARD AS WERE IMPOSED JANUARY 28, 1915, UPON THE CORRESPONDING POSITIONS AND INCUMBENTS IN THE SAID TWO ORGANIZATIONS EXISTING JANUARY 28, 1915.

SECTION 8 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 603 (SEC. 121, TITLE 14, U.S. CODE):

PAY AND ALLOWANCES GENERALLY.--- COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, WARRANT OFFICERS, PETTY OFFICERS, AND OTHER ENLISTED MEN OF THE COAST GUARD SHALL RECEIVE THE SAME PAY, ALLOWANCES, AND INCREASES AS NOW ARE, OR HEREAFTER MAY BE PRESCRIBED FOR CORRESPONDING GRADES OR RATINGS AND LENGTH OF SERVICE IN THE NAVY. AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES AS PROVIDED IN TITLE 37.

THE COURT OF CLAIMS, IN NOCE V. THE UNITED STATES, 58 CT.CLS. 688, HELD THAT UNDER THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, A CAPTAIN OF ENGINEERS IN THE ARMY WAS ENTITLED TO LONGEVITY CREDIT FOR PAY PURPOSES FOR TIME HE SERVED AS A CADET IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY, AUGUST 1, 1913, TO APRIL 20, 1917. THE GROUND FOR THAT CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, REPEALED PROVISIONS IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 37 STAT. 594, WHICH PROHIBITS COUNTING SERVICE AS A CADET AT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY OR THE NAVAL ACADEMY FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING LONGEVITY PAY OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE ARMY. THAT DECISION, HOWEVER, WAS REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 268 U.S. 613. IN CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, THE SUPREME COURT STATED:

* * * IT IS URGED THAT THE WORDS "LONGEVITY PAY SHALL BE BASED ON THE TOTAL OF ALL SERVICE IN ANY OR ALL OF SAID SERVICES" ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXCLUSION OF SERVICE IN THE MILITARY ACADEMY OR IN THE NAVAL ACADEMY FROM THE CALCULATION OF LONGEVITY PAY.

WE ARE UNABLE TO PUT SUCH A CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PROVISO. THE WHOLE ACT WAS INTENDED TO PROMOTE EQUALITY BETWEEN THE SIX SERVICES. AFTER EQUALIZING THEIR PAY, IT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE ANY OFFICER OR ANY MAN IN EITHER OF THE SERVICES THE BENEFIT OF LONGEVITY INCREASES FOR ANY SERVICE WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE HAD IN ANY OTHER OF THE SERVICES. THE REPORT OF THE MANAGERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS TO SEC. 11 AND ITS PROVISO (H.R. 948, 66TH CONG., 2D SESS.) SAID:

"IT PROVIDES THAT COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY, A HIGHLY TECHNICAL AND SPECIALIZED SERVICE, SHALL RECEIVE THE SAME PAY AND ALLOWANCES AS ARE PRESCRIBED FOR OFFICERS OF THE NAVY WITH WHOM THEY HOLD RELATIVE RANK AS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT OF MAY 22, 1917. IT ALSO CONTAINS A PROVISO PLACING ALL SERVICES ON AN EQUALITY IN THE MATTER OF COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY OR SERVICE PAY.'

IN OTHER WORDS, THE LONGEVITY PAY OF A MEMBER OF ANY SERVICE WAS TO BE DETERMINED BY HIS TOTAL SERVICE IN ANY OR ALL OF THE SERVICES. IT WAS NOT DEALING WITH THE RULES AS TO THE LONGEVITY IN ANY ONE SERVICE. IT WAS TO MAKE THE CALCULATION OF LONGEVITY AS IF THE SIX SERVICES WERE BUT ONE SERVICE. IT WAS NOT AIMING AT ANY INEQUALITY WITHIN A SERVICE BUT AT AN INEQUALITY BETWEEN SERVICES. NO REFERENCE IS MADE TO CADET SERVICE AND NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT CONGRESS HAD IT IN MIND.

IN VIEW OF THIS LONG CONTINUED CONTROVERSY WHICH BEFORE 1912 HAD FINALLY BEEN SETTLED ONLY BY TWO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT, IT IS INCONCEIVABLE THAT THE TWO ACTS OF 1912 AND 1913, NULLIFYING THE EFFECT OF THOSE DECISIONS, AND PASSED AFTER A HEATED STRUGGLE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPEALED WITHOUT MENTION OF THE CADET SERVICE IN THE PROVISO NOW SAID TO HAVE WORKED THIS RESULT. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE ACT OF WHICH THIS WAS A PART WAS DETAILED IN ITS REFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, THE NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND TO THE ENLISTED MEN OF THE VARIOUS SIX SERVICES AFFECTED, AND TO THE PAY AND INCREASES WHICH THEY WERE TO RECEIVE. HAD IT BEEN INTENDED TO INCREASE THE "FOGEY" PAY, AS THE LONGEVITY PAY IS CALLED, FOR ONLY A PART OF THE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE ARMY AND ONLY A PART OF THE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE NAVY, AND ONLY A PART OF THE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS IN SUCH A SPECIFIC ACT, THE FAVOR THUS TO BE CONFERRED UPON THEM WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN SET FORTH IN LANGUAGE WHOSE MEANING COULD NOT BE MISTAKEN.

IT IS, INDEED, VERY DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THERE IS ANY REAL INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PROVISO OF 1920 AND THE ACTS OF 1912 AND 1913. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE SHOWN IN THE USE OF THE WORDS "ANY OR ALL OF THE SERVICES" AND IT IS SAID THAT AS "ANY" MAY MEAN ONE OR MORE, IT MAY APPLY TO THE ARMY ALONE, AND CAN ONLY BE SATISFIED BY MAKING IT APPLY TO THE TOTAL SERVICE IN THE ARMY ALONE AND MUST THEREFORE MEAN SERVICE IN THE ARMY AS CONSTRUED BY THIS COURT IN THE MORTON CASE AND THE WATSON CASE, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, UNDER THEN EXISTING LEGISLATION, SERVICE IN THE MILITARY ACADEMY WAS SERVICE IN THE ARMY. THIS, IT SEEMS TO US, IS A STRAINED METHOD OF FIRST FINDING AN INCONSISTENCY, BY NO MEANS CLEAR, IF IT EXISTS AT ALL, AND THEN ERECTING IT INTO AN IMPLIED REPEAL. IMPLIED REPEALS ARE NOT FAVORED. * *

IT APPEARS THAT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NOCE CASE IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, DID NOT MODIFY ANY PROVISIONS OF PRIOR LAW WITH RESPECT TO AUTHORIZED LONGEVITY SERVICE IN ANY OF THE SIX SERVICES INVOLVED, ITS PURPOSE BEING TO EQUALIZE THE RIGHTS OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN ALL OF THE SERVICES CONCERNED BY GIVING THEM RIGHT TO CREDIT FOR ANY AND ALL AUTHORIZED SERVICE IN ANY OF THE SIX SERVICES NAMED--- THAT IS, ANY PARTICULAR SERVICE AUTHORIZED TO BE COUNTED BY OFFICERS OF THE COAST GUARD COULD ALSO BE COUNTED BY OFFICERS IN THE ARMY HAVING THE SAME CHARACTER OF SERVICE. THE QUESTION HERE INVOLVED THEN IS WHETHER AN OFFICER IN THE COAST GUARD COULD COUNT CADET SERVICE IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE AND COAST GUARD DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916. IF SO, THEN UNDER THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11, ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, AN ARMY OFFICER CAN ALSO COUNT CADET SERVICE IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE FOR THE SAME PERIOD.

UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1902, 32 STAT. 100, ABOVE QUOTED, THE PAY OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE WAS ASSIMILATED TO ARMY PAY--- THAT IS, TO PAY PROVIDED BY LAW FOR CORRESPONDING RANK IN THE ARMY "INCLUDING LONGEVITY PAY.' UNDER THAT ACT, SERVICE IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE OF THE SAME CHARACTER AS SERVICE IN THE ARMY THAT COULD BE COUNTED BY OFFICERS OF THE ARMY FOR LONGEVITY PAY PURPOSES, COULD BE COUNTED FOR LONGEVITY PURPOSES BY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE. CADET SERVICE IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE AND CADET SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AND NAVAL ACADEMY ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER AND PURPOSE, BEING EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF A MILITARY CHARACTER TO QUALIFY FOR APPOINTMENT AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER. PRIOR TO AUGUST 24, 1912, AN ARMY OFFICER WAS ENTITLED TO LONGEVITY CREDIT FOR HIS SERVICE AS A CADET IN THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY. THEREFORE, BY REASON OF HIS RIGHT TO ASSIMILATED PAY, INCLUDING LONGEVITY, UNDER THE ACT OF APRIL 12, 1902, A COMMISSIONED OFFICER IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE WAS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR SERVICE AS A CADET IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE PRIOR TO AUGUST 24, 1912, IN THE COMPUTATION OF HIS LONGEVITY PAY. ACCORDINGLY, UNDER THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11, ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, BASING LONGEVITY CREDIT "ON THE TOTAL OF ALL SERVICE IN ANY OR ALL OF SAID SERVICES," AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY WHO SERVED AS A CADET IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE PRIOR TO AUGUST 24, 1912, COULD COUNT THAT SERVICE FOR LONGEVITY PURPOSES. 27 COMP. DEC. 315. THE PAY OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE AND THE COAST GUARD SERVICE CONTINUED TO BE ASSIMILATED TO ARMY PAY UNTIL THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, SECTION 8 OF WHICH ASSIMILATED COAST GUARD PAY TO PAY PROVIDED FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE NAVY. BY REASON OF PROVISION IN THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, 37 STAT. 594, PROHIBITING COUNTING CADET SERVICE AT THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY AND NAVAL ACADEMY IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY OF ARMY OFFICERS, COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE AND THE COAST GUARD COULD NOT COUNT CADET SERVICE IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE OR THE COAST GUARD UNDER APPOINTMENT AFTER THAT DATE IN THE COMPUTATION OF THEIR LONGEVITY PAY. THAT APPLICATION OF THE LAW WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE COAST GUARD REGULATIONS OF 1916, PARAGRAPH 504 OF WHICH PROVIDES:

IN COMPUTING LONGEVITY PAY ALL SERVICE IN THE COAST GUARD, REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE, LIFE SAVING SERVICE, ARMY, NAVY, AND MARINE CORPS SHALL BE INCLUDED EXCEPT SERVICE AS A CADET OR CADET ENGINEER SUBSEQUENT TO AUGUST 24, 1912.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT UNDER THE LAWS QUOTED HEREIN GOVERNING THE PAY OF COMMISSIONED OFFICERS OF THE FORMER REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE AND THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD, AND THE CONSTRUCTION PLACED ON THE PROVISO IN SECTION 11 OF THE ACT OF MAY 18, 1920, 41 STAT. 604, BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE NOCE CASE, LIEUTENANT COLONEL DALY IS NOT ENTITLED TO LONGEVITY CREDIT FOR THE TIME HE SERVED AS A CADET IN THE FORMER REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE AND THE COAST GUARD FROM AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916. YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PAY THE VOUCHER IN QUESTION WHICH IS RETAINED IN THE FILES OF THIS OFFICE.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL DALY SHOULD PROMPTLY REFUND TO THE UNITED STATES ALL PAY AND ALLOWANCES RECEIVED BY HIM BASED ON LONGEVITY SERVICE AS A CADET IN THE REVENUE CUTTER SERVICE FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 7, 1914, TO NOVEMBER 29, 1916.