does not appear to be for application in the situation here involved since, according to the information contained in your submission, the enlisted personnel discharged at Great Lakes did not continue in the active naval service. Under section 126 of the National Defense Act, as amended, enlisted members of the Naval Reserve are entitled to travel allowance upon release from active duty even though they continue as members of such Reserve in an inactive status. A fortiori, enlisted men-whether they be members of the Naval Reserve or of the Regular Navy-who are completely separated from the service by discharge and then enter the Naval Reserve in an inactive status, either by immediate enlistment therein as apprentice seamen or by accepting an appointment as a midshipman at a later date under the provisions of the said act of August 13, 1946, would be entitled to such allowance, provided, of course, such inactive duty status was not terminated by active duty orders resulting in continuous active service. Since it is shown that the enlisted men here involved were discharged for the convenience of the Government, they are entitled to travel allowance under section 126 of the National Defense Act, as amended. The fact that travel incident to release from active duty or discharge was not actually performed would not bar payment of travel allowance since such allowance is payable in advance and without regard to the performance of any travel. Accordingly, question (1) (a) is answered in the affirmative.

Section 4 of the act of August 13, 1946, and section 20 (a) of the act of August 2, 1946, supra, authorize the payment of a mileage allowance to persons therein indicated for initial travel performed from home to the college or university in which matriculated. Hence, individuals who enroll in the officer training program under the act of August 13, 1946, and actually travel from their homes to such institutions of learning are entitled to a mileage allowance for such travel. Hence, question (1) (b) is answered in the affirmative.

On the basis of the foregoing, questions (2) (a) and (2) (b) are answered in the affirmative. Question (2) (c) also is answered in the affirmative, provided the individual mentioned therein otherwise is entitled to travel allowance computed on the distance from Great Lakes, Illinois, to Omaha, Nebraska.

With respect to question (2) (d) it should be noted that the mileage allowance for initial travel to the applicable college or university is not a gratuity but is in the nature of reimbursement for expenses of travel actually performed and, under the particular circumstances stated, if travel is performed only from Chicago to the school in which matriculated-at Evanston, Illinois-the mileage allowance would be payable only for such travel.

On the basis of the provisions of section 20 (a) of the act of August 2, 1946, supra, and the answers to questions (1) (a) and (1) (b), questions (3) (a) and (3) (b) are answered in the affirmative. Question (3) (c) also is answered in the affirmative. See the answers to questions (1) (a) and (2) (d).

(B-73715)

COMPENSATION-POSTAL SERVICE INITIAL SALARY RATES-RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE CLERKS IN CHARGE TRANSFERRED TO POSITIONS AS RAILWAY POSTAL CLERKS

In view of the provisions of section 7 of the act of August 24, 1912, authorizing the transfer of Railway Mail Service clerks to any other classification in the Service, and the provisions of the act of March 3, 1917, precluding the salary reduction of such clerks upon transfer, Railway Mail Service clerks in charge, upon transfer and reassignment to positions as railway postal clerks, may be paid salaries at the maximum additional salary grade provided for clerks in the line classification to which they are assigned. 27 Comp. Gen. 68, distinguished.

Comptroller General Warren to the Postmaster General, April 6, 1948:

Consideration has been given your letter of February 16, 1948, reference 24, with which you forwarded copies of Form 1100, Notice of Exception, issued by the Postal Accounts Division of this Office, concerning salary payments made to Lorain F. Hagadorn, and other railway postal clerks, each of whom was transferred from a position as clerk in charge, Railway Mail Service, to a position as clerk in a class B line at a salary of $3,600 per annum, grade 14, which is the maximum additional salary grade provided for a clerk on a class B line. You request a decision as to the correctness of the audit action as reflected in said notices of exceptions.

The basis stated for the exceptions is the decision of August 8, 1947, B-67985, 27 Comp. Gen. 68, which held, quoting from the syllabus:

Supervisory employees in first-class post offices who are to be reassigned to clerical grades because of decrease of postal receipts or for any other reason may not, upon reassignment, be placed in grades 12, 13, or 14 which were created by section 12 (2) of the Postal Service pay statute of July 6, 1945, for the purpose of promoting thereto certain employees who have rendered prescribed minimum periods of faithful and meritorious service.

In effect, it is urged in your letter that said decision is not for application where persons who have been assigned as clerks in charge in the Railway Mail Service are reassigned in positions as railway postal clerks, and that such reassignments lawfully may be made to the maximum additional salary grade provided for the position to which assigned. In that connection, among other things, you invite attention to section 7 of the act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 555, 556. 39 U. S. C. 624, and the provisions relating to transfers of postal clerks contained in the act making appropriations for the service of the Post

Office Department for the fiscal year 1918, approved March 3, 1917, 39 Stat. 1065, 39 U. S. C. 632, as follows:

624. Same; transfer.

A clerk of any grade of any classification of railway post offices, terminal railway post offices, transfer offices, or in the office of a division superintendent or chief clerk, may be transferred and assigned to any classification of railway post offices, terminal railway post offices, transfer offices, or to an office of a division superintendent or chief clerk under such regulations as the Postmaster General may deem proper.

*

632. Transfer; salaries not reduced.

When railway postal clerks are transferred from one assignment to another because of changes in the service their salaries shall not be reduced by reason of such change.

Also, see Farley v. Abbetmeier, 114 F. 2d 569, 72 App. D. C. 260.

In view of the above provisions of law, it is concluded that the decision reported in 27 Comp. Gen. 68 is not for application under the facts presented, and the audit exceptions to which you refer in your letter will be removed.

(B-70059)

TRANSPORTATION-ROUTES-LESS-THAN-CARLOAD SHIPMENT MISROUTED DUE TO SHIPPER'S ERROR IN BILL OF LADING Inasmuch as an initial carrier has the duty of ascertaining in relation to a lessthan-carload shipment, or to a car containing more than a single shipment, the correctness of the facts shown on a bill of lading prepared by a shipper, charges over and above those otherwise applicable, resulting from the forwarding of a car to other than its proper destination in reliance upon a bill of lading prepared by the shipper which gave a wrong car reference, may not be paid.

Assistant Comptroller General Yates to the Southern Pacific Company, April 7, 1948:

Consideration has been given your request for review of the settlement, per certificate No. 27341812, February 5, 1946, which disallowed your claim for $166.79 as a part of the charges asserted to be due for transporting a shipment of cotton piece goods, weighing 12,326 pounds, from Columbia, South Carolina, to Mare Island, California, which was shipped for the Navy Department by the Mt. Vernon Woodberry Mills, Incorporated, under bill of lading No. N-697920, August 14, 1941, with directions that the shipment be transported via "Sou. Rwy., StLSW Rwy., M&A Rwy., KCS Rwy., CRI&P Rwy., D&RGW RR., SFCo., & SF&NV RR." The bill of lading indicated that the shipment was loaded by the Mt. Vernon Woodberry Mills into car B&O 371073.

The record shows that two other shipments of cotton piece goods were supposed to have been loaded in car B&O 371073, one, consisting of 78

rolls, for the Supply Officer at the Puget Sound Navy Yard, Bremerton, Washington, and the other, consisting of 36 rolls, for the Supply Officer at the Mare Island Navy Yard. This car was tendered by the shipper to the Southern Railway Company which accepted it on August 14, 1941, and apparently it was moved by that carrier to John Sevier Transfer, Knoxville, Tennessee, without first making an inspection of the car's contents at Columbia. In any event, upon arrival at Knoxville, the car was found to contain two shipments destined to Brooklyn, New York, and none for Mare Island or Bremerton. After appropriate investigation with the agent of the Southern Railway Company at Columbia, the agent at Knoxville forwarded the two shipments destined to Brooklyn, "on memorandum waybill to Southern-Pinners Point, Va."

The Southern Railway Company's agent at Knoxville reported also that the shipments for Mare Island and for Bremerton "actually moved in MKT 95434 via the Coastline and were not handled by the Southern Railway." That report is consistent with your statement that the subject shipment was moved from Columbia, South Carolina, "via ACL to Norfolk." According to your request for review the movement beyond Norfolk was via the Eastern Steamship Line to New York, and "thence NYC to Chicago, C&NW-Omaha, UP-Ogden, thence SP due to mishandling by the shippers." Accordingly, you again request the payment of $166.79, and contend that the carriers are not responsible for the error made by the shipper in loading the subject shipment into car M-K-T 95434, instead of loading it into car B&O 371073 as indicated on bill of lading No. N-697920.

Thus, the designated bill of lading was executed by the Southern Railway to show receipt of the subject shipment by that carrier at Columbia, South Carolina, in car B&O 371073, on August 14, 1941, but the record indicates said shipment, together with one other shipment for Mare Island and one shipment for Bremerton, Washington, likewise supposed to have been loaded in that car, were, in fact, loaded in car M-K-T 95434, which was tendered to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, supposedly containing the two shipments for Brooklyn, New York. It is evident from the developments thus indicated that neither car was examined at Columbia by the respective carriers. On the contrary, and apparently in reliance upon the information appearing in the respective bills of lading, the Southern Railway Company moved car B&O 371073 to Knoxville, Tennessee, before examining its contents, and the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad moved car M-K-T 95434 to Norfolk, Virginia, before its contents were examined. However, the Southern Railway Company, upon discovering its possession of the two shipments for Brooklyn, investigated the matter

and forwarded said shipments to Pinners Point, Virginia, on memorandum waybills, thus placing them in the line of route from Columbia. to Brooklyn. On the other hand, the record does not show what action. in the way of investigation was taken by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, at Norfolk, upon discovering the West Coast shipments in its possession, and no explanation is made of why the subject shipment was not forwarded on a memorandum waybill to the nearest point in the route specified on the covering bill of lading as was done by the Southern Railway Company with respect to the Brooklyn shipments. On the contrary, it appears from your statement that the shipment was forwarded to New York via the Eastern Steamship Line and thence via connecting lines to Mare Island, which had the effect of increasing the charges over those which would have been assessable had the shipment been handled as astray freight, or if it had been sent from Norfolk to Mare Island via a direct route over which the rate from Columbia to Mare Island applied.

Moreover, it is apparent from what has been stated above that the subject shipment was handled from the shipper's plant in trap-car service as evidenced by the fact that each of the cars here involved contained more than one shipment. Swift and Company v. Akron, Canton and Youngstown Railway Company, 167 I. C. C. 355, 361, Note 4. Therefore, while the shipper may have prepared the subject bill of lading and indicated the shipment as having been loaded in car B&O 371073, that fact did not justify the Southern Railway Company in forwarding said car to Knoxville, Tennessee, before examining its contents. Had the lading of either of these cars been checked by the respective carriers at Columbia, no doubt all shipments found in the cars would have been sent to their respective destinations over proper routes.

It is to be observed that while bills of ladings may be prepared by shippers, under the law the duty of issuing appropriate bills of lading to cover shipments tendered for transportation rests with the carriers, and the fact that it is not uncommon for shippers to prepare bills of lading for execution by the carrier does not relieve the carrier of the duty to issue proper bills of lading after ascertaining for itself the facts necessary thereto. Exposition Cotton Mills v. Southern Railway Company, 234 I. C. C. 441, 442. This requirement of the law seems clearly to impose upon the initial carrier the duty of ascertaining in relation to a less-than-carload shipment, or to a car containing more than a single shipment, the correctness of a car number shown on a bill of lading prepared by a shipper, particularly, when, as here, the shipper has no control or direction over the movement of the car used by the carriers to transport such shipments, even though-as in