ment fund of a former employee was available as a set-off, there was some direct evidence of guilt or sufficient facts to make out a prima facie case against the debtor in respect of losses sustained by the Government which were, or were presumed to have been, due to his fault or negligence. Under these decisions mere suspicion that a person previously found guilty of theft of Government funds in his own custody may not be accepted as establishing a prima facie case that he also stole funds in the custody of other employees. See O'Leary v. United States, 82 Ct. Cls. 305, and Boerner v. United States, 30 Fed. Supp. 635; affirmed on appeal 117 Fed. (2d) 387.

Therefore, on the basis of the present record, it is concluded that the Post Office Department has no valid claim against the amount in the retirement fund to the credit of Roy F. Daentl, which amount he is not claiming at this time.

As requested, the correspondence enclosed with your letter is returned and there is enclosed an extra copy of this decision.

(B-25112)

TRANSPORTATION-DEPENDENTS OF NAVY PERSONNEL-LOCATION OF DEPENDENTS ON RECEIPT OF CHANGE OF STATION ORDERS While ordinarily claims by Navy personnel for the commercial cost of transportation of dependents incident to a change of station are required to be supported by a showing as to the location of the dependents at the time the officer or man received the change of station orders, where the dependents were at the old station when change of station orders were issued, the cost of their travel performed after that date from the old to the new station is payable without any showing as to where they were when the orders were received. 19 Comp. Gen. 102, modified.

Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, May 9, 1942:

There has been received your letter of April 3, 1942, with enclosures, transmitting the claim of Captain Walden L. Ainsworth, United States Navy, for the commercial cost of transportation of his dependent (wife) in connection with her travel from Norfolk, Va., to San Francisco, Calif., February 12 to 16, 1942, on change of the home yard of the vessel to which he is attached made under orders of February 11, 1942, and requesting a decision as to whether the said claim legally may be paid.

It appears that the home yard of the vessel was formerly Norfolk and was changed to Puget Sound by orders of February 11, 1942; that the dependent commenced travel from Norfolk on February 12, 1942; that the vessel was then on the West coast and that the order changing the home yard was not received on board until February 17, after the arrival of the dependent on the West coast. Whether either the officer or his dependent had information of the change prior to receipt of the orders on board is not indicated.

The decision of July 25, 1939, 19 Comp. Gen. 102, held that:

Since the measure of the monetary allowance authorized in lieu of transportation in kind of dependents is controlled by where the dependents are when orders of change of station are received, evidence of the location of the dependents at such time is material to a proper determination of the amount due the officer or man for their transportation.

The rule thus stated is obviously correct and is required by the terms of the statutes relating to transportation of dependents, but where it is shown that the dependents were at the old station when the orders were issued and thereafter traveled to the place which became his new station, such information is not necessary as the measure of allowance in such a case is apparent, and when the officer received notice of the change would not modify the measure. As commanding officer of the vessel, Captain Ainsworth has certified, under date of March 14, 1942, that on February 11, 1942, he was attached to the vessel in the capacity of commanding officer and that his wife left Norfolk, Va., February 12, 1942, and arrived at San Francisco, Calif., February 16, 1942. Her travel from the East coast to the West coast of the United States was performed after the issuance of the orders for a change in the home yard of the vessel to which the officer is attached.

However, for the reasons stated in 19 Comp. Gen. 102, in connection with any claim for transportation of dependents involving a change of station there should be a showing as to the location of the dependents at the time the change of station orders were received by the officer or man, unless, as in this case, it can be shown the dependents were at the old station when the orders were issued.

The voucher in favor of Captain Ainsworth is returned herewith and payment thereon is authorized if otherwise correct.

(B-25719)

OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES ON MILITARY DUTY-AUTOMATIC PROMOTIONS; RECORDATION OF CIVILIAN STATUS CHANGES; ETC.

A civilian employee on active military duty who becomes entitled to a withingrade salary advancement under the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law 200, at the beginning of a quarter occurring within a period for which he is paid, concurrently with military pay, civilian compensation for accumulated and current accrued annual leave granted pursuant to the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law 202, as amended, is entitled to be paid at the increased salary rate during such period of annual leave from the effective date of the salary advancement.

There is no legal or accounting objection to the administrative recording of changes in the status of employees on military duty who, when restored to their civilian positions, under existing law will be entitled to the benefit of any reallocation of their positions, and who, under Executive Order No. 8882, saving to them "without loss of seniority" the right to within-grade salary advancements authorized by the act of August 1, 1941, will be entitled to any automatic promotions that would have accrued to them during their absence had they remained in civilian service. 20 Comp. Gen. 789, amplified.

Comptroller General Warren to the Postmaster General, May 11, 1942:

I have your letter of April 28, 1942, as follows:

In the ruling of your office dated May 20, 1941 (20 C. G. 789), it was stated: 66 # * * no administrative action making adjustments in grade and salary rate of postal employees should be taken during the absence of the employees on military duty, the benefits of the Selective Training and Service Act and Public Resolution of August 27, 1940, being available only upon restoration to civilian positions. However, upon restoration to their civilian positions under the terms and conditions of said statutes, regular postal employees may be advanced to the grade and salary rate to which they would have been advanced had their military service been in the postal service in accordance with existing laws and regulations."

If this ruling is strictly followed in all instances, situations will arise whereby employees will be deprived of benefits which they would not have lost otherwise. For example, a post office inspector was entitled under the provisions of the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law No. 200, 77th Congress, to a within-grade promotion effective April 1, 1942. However, he entered the military service on March 27, 1942, and because of the ruling cited the withingrade promotion was withheld. At the time this inspector entered the military service he had 19 days of accumulated and accrued annual leave to his credit and made application for payment thereof. He will, therefore, be in a pay status from March 27 to April 15, 1942. By reason of the withholding of the within-grade promotion due April 1, he will receive compensation at a lower rate from April 1 to 15, than that to which he is entitled under Public Law No. 200.

It seems clear from the wording of the Selective Training and Service Act and Public Resolution of August 27, 1940, and various interpretations thereof, that it was the intent of Congress that no employee should be penalized by his military service. It is assumed, therefore, that in such instances employees should receive promotions to which they are entitled despite the fact that they are in the military service rather than civilian employment. Is this assumption correct?

The ruling cited above was made principally in connection with the automatic promotion law by which the compensation of regular Postal Service employees is governed and which promotions are contingent upon length of service. In such cases there is no particular difficulty in maintaining records by which an employee's status may be determined upon his return to civilian employment. The compensation of employees within the purview of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, however, depends upon the position which they occupy, as well as length of service and other requirements. To defer reallocations under the Classification Act, or promotions under Public Law 200, makes it very difficult in many instances to maintain records which will insure an employee's reemployment rights upon return to civilian employment.

For example, a number of post office inspectors now on active military service are the first eligibles for reassignment to positions involving territories other than the ones they occupied at the time of entering military service and these positions have been allocated to higher classification grades. If one of these soldiers is selected for assignment to a position in the higher classification grade, his reemployment rights at the higher salary become so clearly recorded that no question can arise upon his return. At the same time, some other person can be promoted to the assignment for the duration of the military service, and by recording this limitation in the promotion order and on the classification sheet no misunderstanding can well be asserted later as to the permanency of the promotion. Unless the promotion of the soldier can be officially recorded by customary journal entry and classification sheet, the promotion of the second choice will appear on the records to be a permanent promotion and the establishment of the reemployment right of the soldier in the higher grade on his return will be difficult, if not impractical. The same difficulty exists in preserving a proper record of the advancement of other persons involved in consequential grade advances resulting from.filling the first vacancy.

In a ruling of your office dated October 27, 1941 (21 C. G. 369), it was stated:

"An employee who is on leave of absence without pay October 1, 1941, should be given the periodic increase in compensation for record purposes

payment to be made if and when he returns to a pay status-provided all other requirements for such increase are met."

Since reallocations and other promotions made merely for record purposes would result in no expenditures from appropriations until such time as employees comply with the requirements for reemployment specified by the Selective Training and Service Act and Public Resolution of August 27, 1940, it is believed that in the discretion of the head of a department such reallocations and promotions for record purposes should be permitted.

It will be appreciated if you will advise me as soon as practicable whether there is any legal or accounting objection to such a procedure.

Decisions of this office have held that it is within administrative discretion either to separate employees from their civilian positions or to furlough them without pay during absence while in the military or naval service. 20 Comp. Gen. 167; 21 id. 403. It is understood from your letter, supra, that the Post Office Department has elected to furlough employees without pay, rather than to separate them from the service.

The decision of May 20, 1941, 20 Comp. Gen. 789, a portion of which is quoted in the first paragraph of your letter, held that regular employees of the Postal Service were entitled upon restoration to their civilian positions to be advanced to the grade and salary rate to which they would have been advanced had their military service been in the Postal Service in accordance with existing laws and regulations. The decision was rendered prior to the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law 202, 55 Stat. 616-since amended by the act of April 7, 1942, Public Law 517, 56 Stat. 200-authorizing the payment for accumulated or current accrued annual leave concurrently with the receipt of military pay and prior, also, to the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law No. 200, 55 Stat. 613, authorizing within-grade salary advancements to employees occupying permanent positions within the scope of the Classification Act. Said decision dealt primarily with the matter as stated in the first part of paragraph 4 of your letter and was not intended as holding that the Post Office Department could not keep a record of changes in status of employees based on seniority or longevity during their absence while in the military service, section 8 of the Selective Training and Service Act, approved September 16, 1940, 54 Stat. 890, authorizing restoration "without loss of seniority." Referring to the second and third paragraphs of your letter, an employee who became entitled to a within-grade salary advancement at the beginning of a quarter occurring within the period of annual leave granted pursuant to the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law 202, 55 Stat. 616, as amended, is entitled to be paid at the increased rate during the period of annual leave from the effective date of the within-grade salary advancement.

Section 5 of Executive Order No. 8882, dated September 3, 1941, containing the President's regulations under the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law 200, provides as follows:

Any employee of the Federal Government who in accordance with the provisions of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 (Public No. 783, 76th Congress), or of Public Resolution No. 96, approved August 27, 1940, relating to the mobilization of auxiliary military personnel, is restored to the same position or a position of like seniority, status, and pay, without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to receive a salary at a rate of not less than the employee's latest rate prior to his entrance into active military or naval duty plus any within-grade salary advancement or advancements to which he would have been eligible under the provisions of the said section 7 (b) of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.

Therefore, as an employee would be entitled, upon restoration to a civilian position, to the benefit of the reallocation of the position he occupied when he entered the military or naval service, as well as to any automatic promotions which would have been due during absence in the armed forces had he remained in civilian service, there would be no legal or accounting objection to the recording of such change. The keeping of such record of changes in status of employees in the military service is purely an administrative matter with which this office is not directly concerned, there not being involved thereby any expenditure of appropriated moneys. Hence, the question in the concluding paragraph of your letter is answered in the negative.

(B-25083)

TRANSPORTATION-DEPENDENTS MARINE CORPS RESERVE

The transportation to which dependents of officers and enlisted men of the Marine Corps Reserve on reporting for active duty are entitled under the act of August 25, 1941, which authorizes transportation of dependents of such officers and enlisted men "when ordered to active duty" but which does not designate the point from which the transportation is authorized. is limited to the distance for which the officer or man himself is entitled to mileage or transportation in reporting to active duty.

Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, May 12, 1942:

There has been received your letter of April 4, 1942 (with enclosure), requesting decision as to what transportation is authorized for dependents of members of the Marine Corps Reserve under the conditions stated in three specific cases set forth in a letter addressed to you by the Commandant, United States Marine Corps, dated March 31, 1942, which is as follows:

Subject: Transportation for dependents of reserve personnel.

References: (a) Public Law 247, 77th Congress, approved Aug. 25, 1941. (b) Public Law 287, 77th Congress, approved Oct. 30, 1941. (c) Public Law 408, 77th Congress, approved Jan. 20, 1942.

1. The above cited acts of Congress provide for transportation for dependents of retired and reserve personnel when ordered to active duty. It is not specifically stated from what points and under what conditions with regard to receipt of orders transportation may be furnished, although there appears to be no doubt that transportation may be furnished from the homes of personnel when the dependents are located and orders are received by personnel at their homes. There is a doubt, however, as to what bearing the receipt of orders and enlistment or assignment to active duty at or places may have, as in the following examples: