Congress, but, if so, the remedy for such oversight lies with the Congress and not the accounting officers.

(B-71280)

TRAVELING EXPENSES-RETURN TO U. S. FROM OVERSEAS STATIONS-EMPLOYEES BEING RETIRED VOLUNTARILY

Under section 7 of the administrative expense statute of August 2, 1946, providing for the allowance of travel and transportation expenses on the return of employees from their posts of duty outside continental United States to the places of their actual residence at the time of assignment to duty overseas, the travel and transportation expenses of an employee incident to his return to the United States from an overseas post of duty for reasons of retirement would be payable from an otherwise available appropriation upon the issuance of a proper travel order, even though the employee is retiring voluntarily.

Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of the Treasury, December 16, 1947:

Reference is made to your letter of November 19, 1947, as follows:

The Division of Disbursement, Bureau of Accounts, Treasury Department, transferred an employee from Washington, D. C. to Manila, Philippine Islands, to function as Assistant Disbursing Officer. The employee landed in Manila April 8, 1947. On April 28, 1947, the employee addressed a letter to the Chief Disbursing Officer, stating in part,

"In view of the economy measure and the possible far-reaching effect thereof, I am contemplating retiring from the Government service on June 30, 1947 inasmuch as I will have completed thirty (30) years service on May 2, 1947, and reach my sixtieth (60) birthday on June 14, 1947."

In this connection it has been the policy of the Division of Disbursement, Bureau of Accounts, Treasury Department, to rotate its employees on duty outside the continental limits of the United States every two years, as evidenced by copies of letters attached hereto, and while the employee in question has not served for such time, it is the desire of the Department to comply with his request for retirement as soon as possible.

The question in connection therewith arises as to the availability of the appropriation of the Division of Disbursement, Bureau of Accounts, to pay for the cost of return of this employee from Manila, Philippine Islands to Washington, D. C. for the purpose of retirement in view of the provisions of Public Law 600, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, 60 Stat., 808, Sec. 7, which state as follows:

"Appropriations for the department shall be available, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President, for expenses of travel of new appointees, expenses of transportation of their immediate families and expenses of transportation of their household goods and personal effects from places of actual residence at time of appointment to places of employment outside continental United States, and for such expenses on return of employees from their posts of duty outside continental United States to the places of their actual residence at time of assignment to duty outside the United States: [Italics supplied.]

*

House of Representatives Report No. 2186 and Senate Report No. 1636 both submitted in the 79th Congress, 2nd. Session to accompany H. R. 6533, which was enacted into Public Law 600, côntain the following statement on Section 7 of the bill:

"It is intended to insure, that, in the case of positions abroad to be filled by citizens from this country, there would not be applied the general rule that an employee must bear the expenses of reporting to his first duty station and of returning to his home or place of engagement upon separation from the service." In view of the intent of the Congress of the United States, as expressed in the

above reports, your decision is also respectfully requested as to whether the provisions of Section 7 of Public Law 600 are separable so as to cover the expenses of travel of employees who have been in the service for a number of years on return from their posts of duty outside the continental United States.

The provision in section 7 of Public Law 600, 60 Stat. 808, quoted in your letter, supra, for the allowance of travel and transportation expenses for return of employees from their posts of duty outside the continental United States to the places of their actual residence at the time of assignment to duty outside the continental United States is not coupled with authority to pay the expenses of their outward journey; neither is it limited to new appointees. In that connection, see decision of November 14, 1946, B-61379, 26 Comp. Gen. 322; decision of January 15, 1947, B-62267, 26 Comp. Gen. 488, 496 (question and answer No. 10); decision of April 29, 1947, B-65683, 26 Comp. Gen. 831; and decision of November 17, 1947, B-70850, 27 Comp. Gen. 282. The apparent purpose of that provision is to authorize the payment of travel and transportation expenses in connection with the return of employees to their former residences in the United States when their services no longer are to be utilized outside the United States, providing of course that the return of such employees otherwise would be proper. There appears to be no reason for concluding that when properly authorized the return of an employee for reasons of retirement would not be within that purpose, even though, as in the present case, the employee is retiring voluntarily.

In view of the above, it may be concluded, therefore, that upon the issuance of a proper order, the appropriations of the Division of Disbursement, Bureau of Accounts, which are available for travel and transportation expenses, would be available for the payment of the cost of the return of the employee who is the subject of your letter, from Manila, Philippine Islands, to Washington, D. C., provided of course that Washington, D. C., was the place of his actual residence at the time of his assignment to duty outside the United States. Your questions are answered accordingly.

(B-70427)

WITHIN-GRADE SALARY ADVANCEMENTS

INCLUSION IN LUMP-SUM

LEAVE PAYMENT; CREDITING OF LEAVE WITHOUT PAY

In the case of an employee separated from the service during July 1947 by reason of reduction in force-notification of which having been received during the fiscal year 1947-the lump-sum leave payment authorized by section 103 of the Second Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1947, to be charged against the unobligated balance of the 1947 appropriation from which such employee was paid may be computed at the rate of compensation which in

cludes a within-grade salary advancement that the employee became entitled to subsequent to June 30, 1947, but prior to his separation from the service. An employee who, while on leave without pay granted in connection with his separation by reduction in force, completed the prescribed waiting period for within-grade salary-advancement purposes within the leave-withoutpay period of twenty-two eight-hour days authorized to be credited as service for such purposes by section 25.231 (c) of the Federal Employees Pay Regulations is entitled to have his lump-sum leave payment computed at the rate of compensation which includes the within-grade salary advancement, even though the employee did not return to a pay status.

Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of the Treasury, December 19, 1947:

Reference is made to your letter of October 16, 1947, as follows:

Your decision is requested on the following factual situation representative of a number of employees in the Bureau of Federal Supply.

During the month of June 1947 an employee is notified of his reduction in force separation effective July 31, 1947. The notice stipulates that the employee is to be placed in a leave-without-pay status effective the opening of business July 1, 1947, to continue through July 31, 1947. On July 15, 1947 the employee, aside from the fact that he is in a leave-without-pay status, completes the statutory period for a within-grade promotion.

In determining the lump sum payment for accumulated leave to be charged against the unobligated balance of the 1947 appropriation from which such employee was paid, pursuant to the provisions of section 103 of the Second Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1947, Public Law 122, 80th Congress, First Session, is such employee to be paid at the rate of compensation in effect for the employee as of June 30, 1947, or may such payment be computed on the basis of a rate taking into consideration the within-grade promotion to which the employee would have been entitled on July 15, 1947 had he not been placed in a leavewithout-pay status?

In your consideration of this question your attention is invited to section 25.231 of the Federal Employees Pay Regulations promulgated by the Civil Service Commission, which provides, in part, as follows:

"Sec. 25.231. Service to be credited. In computing the periods of service required for within-grade salary advancements there shall be credited to such service:

"(a) Continuous civilian employment in any branch (legislative, executive, or judicial), executive department, independent establishment or agency, or corporation of the Federal Government or in the municipal government of the District of Columbia. * * **

"(c) Leave without pay and furlough, not to exceed in total the equivalent of twenty-two eight-hour days in the basic forty-hour workweek, within the period of service required for one periodic within-grade advancement.

*

Bearing in mind that the employee does not return to a pay status, the subsidiary question for consideration is whether the "twenty-two eight-hour days" referred to in the foregoing subparagraph (c) must occur within a period in which the employee is in a pay status or whether the "twenty-two eight-hour days" may be added to the period after June 30, 1947.

Section 103 of the Second Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act. 1947, approved June 27, 1947, 61 Stat. 188, provides:

When employees are separated from the service during July 1947 by reason of a reduction-in-force and have been given notice of such separation during the fiscal year 1947, lump-sum payments for accumulated leave may be charged against unobligated balances of the 1947 appropriations from which such employees were paid: Provided, That subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of section 14 (a) of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1946 (Public Law 390) shall not apply to such employees.

The purpose of that section was to authorize the use of unobligated balances of appropriations from which the employees were paid for the fiscal year 1947 in making lump-sum payments for accumulated annual leave to employees separated in July 1947 by reason of a reduction in force and who received notices of such separation during the fiscal year 1947. Nothing in that section requires the lump-sum payment to be computed at the salary rate received by the employee at the close of the fiscal year 1947.

It was held in the decision of August 8, 1946, B-59352, 26 Comp. Gen. 102, 106, that:

# where, prior to the date of separation, an employee has completed the requisite period of actual service and all other conditions of the statute and applicable regulations have been met, the mere fact that by reason of the provision in section 7 (b) of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, supra, postponing the effective date of the within-grade salary advancement until "the beginning of the next pay period" following the completion of such period of service, he did not actually receive the advance prior to the separation would not preclude including it in the computation of the lump sum. In other words, where an employee's right to an increase in compensation had become completely vested at the date of separation, it is immaterial that such increase is effective as of a later date. *

In applying the holding in that decision to the facts presented, the lump-sum payment would be for computing at the increased sallary rate where the requisite period of actual service and all other conditions of the statute providing for automatic increases have been met prior to the separation and, in that connection, I perceive no reason for concluding that the "twenty-two eight-hour days" on furlough or leave without pay referred to in section 25.231 (c) of the Federal Employees Pay Regulations, quoted in your letter, supra, need occur within a period during which the employee is in a pay status in the sense mentioned in your letter in order that such days may be counted as service toward a within-grade salary advancement. As I read that section, it authorizes the crediting of leave or furlough without pay not exceeding in total twenty-two eight-hour days in the basic 40-hour workweek toward the required period of service, regardless of when such leave or furlough without pay occurs during the 12 or 18 months' period of service prescribed by subsection (b) of section 7 of the Classification Act, as amended by section 402 of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, 59 Stat. 299.

Under the facts presented, the requisite period of actual service may be considered as having been met at the time of separation on July 31, 1947; hence, if all other prerequisites to a within-grade salary advancement were met at that time the lump-sum payment of annual leave properly may be computed upon the rate of compensation which includes the within-grade salary advancement.

(B-70988)

PAY-ACTIVE DUTY-NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS DURING PERIOD OF HOSPITALIZATION SUBSEQUENT TO RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY

A Naval Reserve officer retired for disability who was hospitalized before expiration of his authorized leave granted under orders detaching him from active duty and directing him to proceed home and, upon expiration of his leave, to regard himself released from active duty is not entitled to active-duty pay and allowances subsequent to the date he reverted to inactive duty, by reason of the provisions in section 4 of the Naval Aviation Personnel Act of 1940, as amended, which, while granting reserve officers the same hospital benefits as Regular Navy officers do not extend to the statutory entitlement of disabled regular officers to full pay and allowances while hospitalized or awaiting retirement action.

Assistant Comptroller General Yates to the Secretary of the Navy, December 19, 1947:

There has been considered your letter of November 4, 1947, with enclosures, wherein you request a decision as to whether Commander Arthur J. Loeffler, Medical Corps, United States Naval Reserve (Retired), is entitled to active-duty pay and allowances for the period December 26, 1945, to August 31, 1946, under the circumstances hereinafter set forth.

It appears that by orders dated November 1, 1945, from the Medical Officer in Command, United States Naval Hospital, San Diego, California, Lieutenant Commander Arthur J. Loeffler was discharged from treatment on that date and directed to report to the Commandant, Eleventh Naval District, San Diego, for further transportation to the U. S. S. Bottineau (APA 235). By endorsement 1, dated November 1, 1945, from the Commandant, Eleventh Naval District, those orders were modified to the extent that the officer was thereby detached from duty on board the U. S. S. Bottineau and he was directed to proceed immediately to Los Angeles, California, and report, on November 2, 1945, to the Commanding Officer, Officer Personnel Separation Center, for release to inactive duty. Endorsement 2, dated November 2, 1945, indicates that he reported on that date as directed and that he was examined and found physically qualified for release from active duty. Accordingly, he was detached and directed to proceed to his home, being granted one month and twenty-three days' leave upon the expiration of which, at midnight, December 25, 1945, he was to regard himself as released from all active duty.

Apparently the officer proceeded in accordance with his orders but it is stated that on December 12, 1945, prior to the expiration of the leave granted him, he was admitted to the Naval Hospital, Camp White, Oregon, for treatment; that he remained hospitalized for sev