B-24826, OCTOBER 30, 1942, 22 COMP. GEN. 420

B-24826, OCTOBER 30, 1942, 22 COMP. GEN. 420

RENTAL ALLOWANCE - OFFICERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS ON DUTY WITH TROOPS THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT DUTY BY OFFICERS IN THE ARMED FORCES IS OR IS NOT "FIELD DUTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS 6 OF THE ACTS OF JUNE 10, 1922, AS AMENDED, AND JUNE 16, 1942, RESPECTIVELY, PROHIBITING THE PAYMENT OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE TO OFFICERS HAVING NO DEPENDENTS, WHILE ON FIELD DUTY, IS FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS OFFICE AS A QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF APPROPRIATED MONEYS. ALL DUTY OF OFFICERS WITH TROOPS FROM AND AFTER DECEMBER 7, 1941, WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, WILL BE CONSIDERED AND TREATED AS "FIELD DUTY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTIONS 6 OF THE ACTS OF JUNE 10, 1922, AS AMENDED, AND JUNE 16, 1942, RESPECTIVELY, PROHIBITING THE PAYMENT OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE TO OFFICERS, HAVING NO DEPENDENTS, WHILE ON FIELD DUTY.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, OCTOBER 30, 1942:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED YOUR LETTER DATED MARCH 24, 1942, REQUESTING DECISION WHETHER OFFICERS OF THE MARINE CORPS, WITHOUT DEPENDENTS, ASSIGNED TO DUTY WITHIN OR WITHOUT CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES DURING THE PRESENT WAR EMERGENCY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN A FIELD DUTY STATUS FOR RENTAL ALLOWANCE PURPOSES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN SECTION I (C) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 4063, OF AUGUST 13, 1924. THERE WAS FORWARDED A LETTER ADDRESSED TO YOU FROM THE COMMANDANT, U.S. MARINE CORPS, AS FOLLOWS:

1. THERE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THIS HEADQUARTERS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OFFICERS, HAVING NO DEPENDENTS, ON DUTY IN THE CARIBBEAN AREA AND IN SOUTH AMERICA ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS ON ,FIELD DUTY" AND DENIED RENTAL ALLOWANCE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1924, 43 STAT., 250, PROVIDING THAT "NO RENTAL ALLOWANCE SHALL ACCRUE TO AN OFFICER, HAVING NO DEPENDENTS, WHILE HE IS ON FIELD * * * DUTY, * * *" REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 6 OF THE AMENDATORY ACT OF MAY 31, 1924, ARE CONTAINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 4063 OF AUGUST 13, 1924, AND IN PARAGRAPH (C) OF SECTION I, THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" IS DEFINED IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:

"THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN SERVICE, UNDER ORDERS WITH TROOPS OPERATING AGAINST AN ENEMY, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL.'

2. IN DEVELOPING THE HISTORY AND USE OF THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" OR "FIELD SERVICE" IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY, BASED ON JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, IN 3 COMP. GEN. 272, AT PAGE 273, FORMULATED A DEFINITION OF THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" IN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:

"THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" AS USED WITH RESPECT TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY CONVEYS THE IDEA OF OPERATION AGAINST AN ENEMY, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL.' AND IT WAS STATED THAT "THIS IS THE SENSE IN WHICH THE TERM IS USED IN THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT., 628, AUTHORIZING RENTAL ALLOWANCE.' IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ALMOST A YEAR LATER THE FRAMERS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER OF AUGUST 13, 1924, EMPLOYED PRACTICALLY THE IDENTICAL LANGUAGE USED IN 3 COMP. GEN. 272, IN CONSTRUCTING THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" WHICH HAS GOVERNED THE PAYMENT OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE TO BACHELOR OFFICERS ON FIELD DUTY SINCE THE ISSUANCE OF THE REGULATIONS.

3. THE PAYMASTER, U.S. MARINE CORPS, IN LETTER OF DECEMBER 17, 1941, FILE 4141 BE-84-RS, SUBMITTED FOR DETERMINATION THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OFFICERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS ON DUTY IN THE PACIFIC AREA SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ON "FIELD DUTY" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE, AND IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE EIGHTH ENDORSEMENT THEREON DATED JANUARY 27, 1942, FILE 100/L16-7 (411217) KJMB, IT WAS STATED THAT:

"IN CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FOREGOING, THE NAVY DEPARTMENT HOLDS THAT THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT OFFICERS, WITHOUT DEPENDENTS, ON DUTY AT PEARL HARBOR, T.H., AND ELSEWHERE IN THE PACIFIC AREA ARE IN A "FIELD DUTY" STATUS FOR RENTAL ALLOWANCE PURPOSES, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TERM AS DEFINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 4063 OF AUGUST 13, 1924, IS ONE OF FACT PROPERLY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE TROOPS CONCERNED.'

IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT CURRENT NAVY REGULATIONS PROVIDE THAT THE COMMANDING OFFICER MAY DETERMINE WHETHER ADEQUATE QUARTERS ARE OR ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ASSIGNMENT TO AN OFFICER AT HIS PERMANENT STATION. YET IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE BACHELOR OFFICERS VOLUNTARILY OCCUPY UNCOMPLETED GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS BUT STATED TO BE THE MOST SUITABLE FOR THEIR OCCUPANCY AND APPARENTLY BUILT ESPECIALLY FOR HOUSING OFFICERS, THE COMMANDING OFFICER'S FINDING THAT "THERE ARE NO PUBLIC QUARTERS AVAILABLE" IS WITHOUT EFFECT ON THEIR STATUS FOR RENTAL ALLOWANCE PURPOSES. SEE DECISION OF THE COMP. GEN. B-23130, OF FEBRUARY 14, 1942.

4. THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR DUTY IS "FIELD DUTY" IS IN GENERAL A MILITARY OR NAVAL QUESTION, BUT THIS FACT DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE MILITARY OR NAVAL AUTHORITIES POWER TO DETERMINE A DUTY TO BE FIELD DUTY REGARDLESS OF ITS CHARACTER. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER AN OFFICER WITHOUT DEPENDENTS IS OR IS NOT ON "FIELD DUTY" FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES FROM APPROPRIATED PUBLIC FUNDS RESTS ENTIRELY IN HIS OFFICE. 3 COMP. GEN. 272. IT IS EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL THEREFORE THAT ANY DETERMINATION BY A COMMANDING OFFICER THAT HIS ORGANIZATION IS NOT ON "FIELD DUTY" WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO PASS TO THE CREDIT IN A DISBURSING OFFICER'S ACCOUNT PUBLIC FUNDS PAID TO OFFICERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE SHOULD THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECIDE THAT THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE MONEY WAS PAID WAS IN FACT ON "FIELD DUTY.'

5. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT HIS OFFICE RETAINS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE QUESTION OF "FIELD DUTY" IN CASE OF BACHELOR OFFICERS FOR RENTAL ALLOWANCE PURPOSES. IN 8 COMP. GEN. 302, AT PAGE 305, REVIEWING THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, AND THE ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE SERVICES TO AMEND THE PROVISION RELATIVE TO FIELD DUTY, IT WAS STATED THAT: "THERE BEING PRONOUNCED OBJECTION IN THE COMMITTEE HAVING THE MATTER IN CHARGE TO DEPRIVING THIS OFFICE OF JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FIELD DUTY, THE MATTER WAS EVENTUALLY COMPROMISED BY OMITTING THE PROVISION ENTIRELY.' IT WAS FURTHER HELD AT PAGE 307 THAT:

"SO FAR AS MATTERS OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES ARE AFFECTED, IT WOULD SEEM FROM THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" HAS NO DEFINITE MEANING. WILL BE OBSERVED THAT THE ORIGINAL SECTION 2 OF THE MCKENZIE BILL WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE BILL BECAUSE OF ITS PLAIN PURPOSE TO CIRCUMSCRIBE THE POWERS OF THIS OFFICE IN THE DETERMINATION OF FIELD DUTY; HAD THAT PROPOSED DEFINITION AND THE CONCLUSIVE DETERMINATION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE MATTER BEEN ENACTED IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN CONTROLLING IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME TERM IN SECTION 6 OF THE ACT. THE DEFINITION AND THE CONCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENTS TO DETERMINE THE MATTER WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE BILL THAT THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF THE AUTHORITY OF THIS OFFICE TO DETERMINE THE MATTER. THE REENACTMENT OF SECTION 6 WITH THE PROVISION FOR REGULATIONS BY THE PRESIDENT IS IDENTICALLY THE SITUATION THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMITTEE PRINT OF THE BILL, AND IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THIS OFFICE OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF PUBLIC MONEYS APPROPRIATED TO PAY INCREASED ALLOWANCES IN CONNECTION WITH FIELD DUTY. CERTAINLY THE INTERPRETATION OF THE TERM BY THIS OFFICE IS MORE CONSISTENT AND MORE CONSONANT WITH THE PRECEDENTS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS THAN THE OPINIONS TO THE CONTRARY OF THE MARINE CORPS ON THE SUBJECT.'

6. SINCE THE DECLARATION OF WAR ON DECEMBER 7, 1941, ORGANIZATIONS AND DETACHMENTS OF MARINES HAVE BEEN SERVING IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD. SERVING WITH THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AND DETACHMENTS ARE OFFICERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS BOTH OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS. THIS HEADQUARTERS IS RELUCTANT TO TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION WHICH WOULD DENY THESE OFFICERS THEIR RENTAL ALLOWANCE, BUT HAVING IN MIND THE PROTECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT, THE OFFICERS CONCERNED, THE DISBURSING OFFICERS CARRYING THEIR ACCOUNTS, AND THE CONSISTENT RULINGS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL ON THE QUESTION OF "FIELD DUTY," IT IS THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE QUESTION IS ONE OF PRIME IMPORTANCE AND ONE WHICH REQUIRES POSITIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. UNDER THE PRESENT WAR SITUATION IT IS WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY THAT A SITUATION ANALOGOUS TO "FIELD DUTY" MAY DEVELOP WITHIN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.

7. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HEREIN IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT, IF DEEMED PROPER, THE QUESTION HEREIN PRESENTED OF OFFICERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS ASSIGNED DUTY WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, BE SUBMITTED TO THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL IN ORDER THAT HIS VIEWS MAY BE OBTAINED WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENT OF RENTAL ALLOWANCES TO THESE OFFICERS DURING THE PRESENT WAR EMERGENCY.

SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, 42 STAT. 628, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF MAY 31, 1924, 43 STAT. 250 (37 U.S.C. 10), AS WELL AS SECTION 6 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 16, 1942, PUBLIC LAW NO. 607, PROVIDES IN PART: "NO RENTAL ALLOWANCE SHALL ACCRUE TO AN OFFICER, HAVING NO DEPENDENTS, WHILE HE IS ON FIELD OR SEA DUTY * * *.'

"FIELD DUTY" WAS DEFINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 4063, DATED AUGUST 13, 1924, AND IS DEFINED IN EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9255, OCTOBER 13, 1942, AS FOLLOWS:

THE TERM "FIELD DUTY" SHALL MEAN SERVICE, UNDER ORDERS, WITH TROOPS OPERATING AGAINST AN ENEMY, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL.

YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CERTAIN OFFICERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS ON DUTY IN THE PACIFIC AREA WERE ON FIELD DUTY WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND THAT ON JANUARY 27, 1942, HE DETERMINED THAT THE QUESTION WAS ONE OF FACT "PROPERLY FOR DETERMINATION BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE TROOPS CONCERNED.' THE QUESTION IN A PARTICULAR CASE, THE FACTS BEING ESTABLISHED, IS A QUESTION OF LAW.

EVER SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISION, AS WELL AS FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR THERETO, IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER STATUTES THIS OFFICE HAS DETERMINED WHAT WAS FIELD DUTY AND WHAT WAS NOT AS A QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE CORRECT APPLICATION OF PUBLIC MONEYS APPROPRIATED TO PAY ALLOWANCES IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH DUTY. 8 COMP. GEN. 302. AND THIS THEORY WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION DATED APRIL 1, 1929, TO WHOM THE MATTER WAS REFERRED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION CITED.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A DUTY IS FIELD DUTY IS NOT A MILITARY OR NAVAL QUESTION BUT IS TO BE DETERMINED FROM THE CHARACTER OF THE SERVICE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT IS PERFORMED. EVEN IN TIME OF WAR THE COURTS HAVE DETERMINED AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT CERTAIN DUTY WAS "IN THE FIELD" OR "FIELD DUTY.' IN THE CASE OF HINES V. MIKELL, 259 FED. REP. 28, DECIDED IN 1919 THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT REVERSED THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT AND IN CONNECTION WITH THE QUESTION WHETHER AN ARMY IS "IN THE FIELD" WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 2 (D) OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR, WHICH PROVIDES THAT "* * * IN TIME OF WAR ALL SUCH RETAINERS AND PERSONS ACCOMPANYING OR SERVING WITH ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, * * *" ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARTICLES OF WAR, THE COURT SAID:

IN TIME OF WAR, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, PRACTICALLY THE ENTIRE ARMY IS "IN THE FIELD," BUT NOT NECESSARILY "IN THE THEATER OF OPERATIONS.' THIS WOULD BE UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE IN CASE OF WAR WITHIN OUR BORDERS, AND WE CAN CONCEIVE OF NO REASON WHY THE ARMY IN AMERICA ENGAGED IN TRAINING AND PREPARING FOR SERVICE ON THE FIRING LINE OVERSEAS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AND TREATED AS A COMPONENT PART OF THE ENTIRE ARMY, THE MAJORITY OF WHOM WERE ACTUALLY ENGAGED ON THE FIRING LINE. TO MAINTAIN THOSE WHO WERE "OVER THERE," IT WAS NECESSARY TO HAVE A RESERVE FORCE LOCATED SO NEAR THERETO AS TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY, AND DURING THE WAR JUST ENDED IT WAS VERY ESSENTIAL THAT THEY SHOULD CONTINUE TO INCREASE SUCH RESERVE FORCE UNDER THE SELECTIVE DRAFT, AND IN ORDER TO DO THIS THE INDIVIDUAL HAD TO BE MUSTERED INTO THE SERVICE AND UNDERGO STRICT DISCIPLINE AND TRAINING SO THAT HE MIGHT RENDER EFFICIENT SERVICE UNDER THE MODERN MODE OF WARFARE. IT SEEMS PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT FROM THE MOMENT HE ENTERED THE SERVICE HE WAS IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD A PART OF THE ARMY, AND WHEN HE WAS TAKEN TO THE CANTONMENT HE THEREBY WAS SERVING WITH THE ARMY "IN THE FIELD," DOING PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING REQUIRED OF A SOLDIER SAVE THAT OF ENGAGING IN ACTUAL COMBAT. * * *

IN EX PARTE GERLACH, 247 FED. REP. 616, DECIDED IN 1917, THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HELD THAT A CIVILIAN ON AN ARMY TRANSPORT PROCEEDING FROM EUROPE TO NEW YORK DURING WORLD WAR 1, WHO HAD VOLUNTEERED TO STAND WATCH AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSED TO PERFORM SUCH DUTY, WAS SUBJECT TO COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 2 (D) OF THE ARTICLES OF WAR AS A PERSON ACCOMPANYING AN ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD. THE COURT USED THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:

* * * I THINK GERLACH WAS A PERSON ACCOMPANYING THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ALSO VOLUNTARILY SERVING WITH THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME HE DISOBEYED THE ORDER. I FURTHER HOLD THAT HE WAS "IN THE FIELD" AND WITHOUT THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ARTICLE. THE WORDS "IN THE FIELD" DO NOT REFER TO LAND ONLY, BUT TO ANY PLACE, WHETHER ON LAND OR WATER, APART FROM PERMANENT CANTONMENTS OR FORTIFICATIONS, WHERE MILITARY OPERATIONS ARE BEING CONDUCTED. IN THIS CASE HE WAS ON AN ARMY TRANSPORT, AND PERIL FROM SUBMARINES EXISTED WHEN HE REFUSED TO STAND WATCH. THE CAPTAIN IN CHARGE OF THE VESSEL HAD, IN MY OPINION, THE RIGHT TO CALL UPON ALL PERSONS ON BOARD TO PROTECT THE TRANSPORT IN ANY WAY THAT SEEMED BEST IN VIEW OF THE DANGER. * * * SEE ALSO EX PARTE FALLS, 251 FED. REP. 415; EX PARTE JOCHEN, 257 ID. 200. IT IS TO BE NOTED, ALSO, THAT THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES AS WELL AS IN OTHER AREAS IN THE PRESENT CONFLICT WITH HIGHLY MECHANIZED ARMED FORCES AND GREAT NUMBERS OF AIRPLANES IS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH EXISTED DURING WORLD WAR 1. DURING WORLD WAR 1 THE FOLLOWING APPEARED IN WAR DEPARTMENT BULLETIN NO. 35 DATED JUNE 15, 1917:

ALL DUTY WITH TROOPS OF ANY KIND IN THE FIELD, AT HOME, OR ABROAD, DURING THE PRESENT WAR, WILL BE CONSIDERED AS NOT TEMPORARY DUTY IN THE FIELD IN CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT OF CONGRESS APPROVED FEBRUARY 27, 1893, WHICH PROVIDES THAT OFFICERS TEMPORARILY ABSENT ON DUTY IN THE FIELD SHALL NOT LOSE THEIR RIGHT TO QUARTERS OR COMMUTATION THEREOF AT THEIR PERMANENT STATIONS WHILE SO TEMPORARILY ABSENT. UNDER THIS DECISION NO OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN ON DUTY IN THE FIELD CAN HAVE ANY OFFICIAL STATION ELSEWHERE, WITHIN THE MEANING AND CONTEMPLATION OF THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE ALLOWANCE OF QUARTERS OR COMMUTATION THEREOF, BUT WHILE ON SUCH DUTY HIS RIGHTS AS TO QUARTERS WILL BE AS PRESCRIBED FOR FIELD SERVICE.

FROM THE FOREGOING IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THOSE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO ARE NOW ENGAGED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY IN THE THEATER OF ACTIVE OPERATIONS ARE ON FIELD DUTY AND IT SEEMS APPARENT THAT OFFICERS ON DUTY WITH TROOPS WITHIN OR WITHOUT CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES ARE ON FIELD DUTY. CLEARLY SINCE DECEMBER 7, 1941, OFFICERS WITH TROOPS IN THE PACIFIC WITHIN THE AREA OF ENEMY OPERATIONS, INCLUDING HAWAII, PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ETC., ARE OPERATING AGAINST AN ENEMY AND ARE ON FIELD DUTY. THE SAME IS TRUE OF OFFICERS WITH TROOPS IN ICELAND, NORTHERN IRELAND, ETC. ENEMY OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN REPORTED OFF BOTH THE ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC COASTS AND ALSO IN THE CARIBBEAN AREA AND THAT AREAS ADJACENT TO THESE WATERS MAY BE SUBJECTED TO ENEMY ATTACK IS MORE THAN A MERE POSSIBILITY. IT IS REPORTED ALSO THAT A "ZONE OF EXPECTANCY" APPROXIMATELY 300 MILES WIDE PARALLELING EACH COAST HAS BEEN MAPPED AS AN AREA WITHIN WHICH ACTUAL ENEMY OPERATIONS MAY BE EXPECTED.

IN THE WASHINGTON POST OF OCTOBER 24, 1942, THERE IS AN ARTICLE IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

SECRETARY KNOX DISCLOSED YESTERDAY THAT THE TOTAL STRENGTH OF THE NAVAL SERVICES--- THE NAVY, MARINE CORPS AND COAST GUARD--- IS NOW APPROXIMATELY 1,300,000 MEN.

THE SECRETARY SAID THE STRENGTH OF THE NAVY WAS NEARLY ONE MILLION AND THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 200,000 IN THE MARINE CORPS. THE REGULAR COAST GUARD, HE SAID, NOW NUMBERS ABOUT 110,000.

ALL THREE OF THE SERVICES, KNOX ADDED, ARE BEING INCREASED "BY A VERY STEADY AND VERY SATISFACTORY RATE OF ENLISTMENT.'

THE SECRETARY AND VICE ADMIRAL RUSSELL R. WAESCHE ALSO DISCUSSED STEPS THE COAST GUARD HAS TAKEN TO INCREASE THE SECURITY OF AMERICAN PORTS, PARTICULARLY THE PORT OF NEW YORK, WHICH KNOX SAID HAD BEEN A MATTER OF CONSIDERABLE CONCERN TO THE NAVY LAST SPRING.

ADMIRAL WAESCHE DISCLOSED THAT THE COAST GUARD HAS A GROUP OF BOATS OPERATING IN THE POTOMAC, ALL THE WAY TO ITS MOUTH, TO PROTECT THE NATION'S CAPITAL.

"NOTHING CAN COME UP THE POTOMAC WITHOUT BEING SIGHTED AND STOPPED BY COAST GUARD BOATS," HE SAID.

PRIMA FACIE ALL DUTY WITH TROOPS, WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES DURING THIS GLOBAL WAR IS FIELD DUTY. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN ATTACKS HAVE BEEN MADE BY ENEMY VESSELS NOT ONLY ADJACENT TO BUT ACTUALLY ON THE COASTS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHEN ENEMY VESSELS HAVE LANDED SABOTEURS IN THE UNITED STATES, THE PROPER DEFENSE OF ALL COMMANDS OF TROOPS IN THE UNITED STATES REQUIRES THAT THE COMMANDING OFFICER SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE COMMAND. WHEN HE HAS THAT AUTHORITY THE COMMAND, AND ALL MEMBERS THEREOF, ARE ON FIELD DUTY OR DUTY IN THE FIELD.

YOU ARE ACCORDINGLY ADVISED THAT IN THE AUDIT AND SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMS IN THIS OFFICE, ALL SERVICE WITH TROOPS, WHETHER WITHIN OR WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES, WILL BE CONSIDERED AND TREATED AS FIELD DUTY FROM AND AFTER DECEMBER 7, 1941.