Page images
PDF
EPUB

(B-19170)

MILEAGE-ARMY OFFICERS TRAVEL TO PLACE OF FIELD DUTY IN ARMY VEHICLE

An Army officer traveling by Army vehicle with an enlisted driver to field duty involving the use of the vehicle is traveling with troops-whether or not the travel was with other vehicles assigned to such duty-within the meaning of Army regulations providing in effect that travel with troops will be regarded as covering all cases of travel under orders for movement of detachments. escorts, or stores, where the movement overland is made by march or by transportation belonging to the United States, and, therefore, is not entitled to mileage.

Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to Maj. H. A. Gardyne, U. S. Army, August 25, 1941:

There was received July 24, 1941, your request, file 245.6, for decision whether you are authorized to pay Lt. Col. Roy M. McCutchen, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, the sum of $19.60, covering his claim for mileage for travel from Fort Belvoir, Va., to Fort Dix, N. J., and return with four other officers, utilizing as transportation five Dodge 12-ton command cars, each driven by an enlisted man.

Paragraph 1, Special Orders No. 61, Headquarters Fifth Engineers, Fort Belvoir, Va., dated April 18, 1941, is as follows:

1. Pursuant to instructions contained in letter, Headquarters, II Army Corps. Wilmington, Delaware, dated April 15, 1941, file AG 210.6, Subject: "Detail of Umpires," the following-named officers and enlisted men, 5th Engineers and Company A, 84th Engineer Battalion (CAM) (ARMY), will proceed via Government transportation on or about Sunday, April 20, 1941, to Fort Dix, New Jersey, reporting to C. P., II Army Corps prior to 7: 45 A. M., Monday, April 21, 1941. Upon release by the Commanding General, II Army Corps, these officers and enlisted men will return to their proper station:

Lt. Colonel Roy M. McCutchen (0-8875).
Major Alan J. McCutchen (0-17093).

Captain Sidney G. Spring (0-19770).

Captain Julian V. Sollohub (0-20584), Company "A," 84th Engineer Battalion.

1st Lieut. Richard D. Wolfe (0-21743).

Sergeant John F. Jones, 6995636, Company "D," driving Dodge 1⁄2-ton command car, USA Reg. #W-2013705.

Pvt. 1cl Robert K. Hudson, 13002362, Company "B," driving Dodge -ton command car, USA Reg. #W-2013514.

Pvt. 1cl Richard J. Morgan, 6949641, H&S Company, driving Dodge 2-ton command car, USA Reg. #W-206856.

Pvt. 1cl Harley H. Dietrich, 6995066, H&S Company, driving Dodge -ton command car, USA Reg. #205218.

Private Marvin S. Hutchison, 33010254, Company "E," driving Dodge -ton command car, USA Reg. #W-2013710.

The travel directed is necessary in the military service and payment when made is chargeable to procurement authority FD 1571 P 31-06 A 0310-01. The finance officer paying this account will report the cost thereof direct to the Commanding General, II Army Corps, Wilmington, Delaware.

To be entitled to the payment of mileage under section 12 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 631, as amended by the act of June 1, 1926,

44 Stat. 680, the officer must have performed travel under competent orders without troops, and the question submitted is whether this movement overland may be regarded as travel without troops. The Secretary of War is charged under the act of June 12, 1906, 34 Stat. 246, with determining what is or is not travel with troops, and pursuant to such authorization, regulations promulgated in paragraph 3a (2), of AR 35-4820, provides that:

Traveling with troops will be regarded as covering all cases of travel included—

Under orders for movement of detachments, escorts, or stores, where the movement is made by marches or by transportation belonging to or especially hired for the purpose by the United States

*

Command cars are described in AR 850-15 (g) as vehicles designed primarily for use of commanders and staff of units in the field. While not stated in the orders, it would appear that each officer was assigned a command car, with an enlisted man serving as driver, and that such field equipment was used by them in connection with their field duty as umpires at the command post exercises at Camp Dix, N. J. Presumably the five cars moved as a unit, or detachment, under the command of the senior officer, however, whether the travel was accomplished individually or as a unit, the movement, while involving less than 10 enlisted men was not ordered "by rail, stage, or like established lines of conveyances," but was by marching overland by Army field equipment, and was within the conditions set out in the cited provisions of paragraph 3a (2) AR 35-4820, and was travel with troops. This application of the regulations is consistent with that in B-13221, December 5, 1940, referred to in forwarding this case, wherein it was stated that if such application is inconsistent with decision of April 18, 1929, A-26752, also referred to, that decision will no longer be followed.

The distinction between travel with troops or travel without troops, for the purpose of mileage, is not dependent upon the number of cars in the movement. If an officer is assigned to the performance of an Army duty with the use of an automobile and an enlisted driver-Army equipment-for its performance, the fact that movement is involved, whether it be at the immediate post or station or at a place more distant, will not constitute it travel, or travel without troops, for the purpose of payment of mileage. The regulations quoted intend to negative payment of mileage for the performance of Army duty where Army equipment is furnished for the necessary movement to perform the assigned duty.

You are advised payment is not authorized on the voucher which will be retained in this office.

(B-19333)

CONTRACTS-COST-PLUS-EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF PAYMENTS— PETTY CASH EXPENDITURES

If petty cash expenditures of $10 or less of War Department cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractors are supported by properly itemized statements and certified by the proper officials, such expenditures may be reimbursed without the furnishing of receipts unless in any particular case the interests of the United States would be adversely affected thereby.

Comptroller General Warren to Maj. W. Gritz, United States Army, August 25, 1941:

There has been received, by indorsement of July 30, 1941, from the Chief of Finance, your letter of July 23, 1941, as follows:

The inclosed Bureau Voucher Nos. 138 and 139, in the amounts of $55.30 and $38.19, respectively, having been presented to the undersigned disbursing office by the Western Cartridge Company, through the office of the Commanding Officer, St. Louis Ordnance Department, St. Louis, Missouri, requesting reimbursement under cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract W-ORD-481, dated December 5, 1940, are submitted for advance decision as to the proper items to be allowed and propriety of reimbursing the contractor for petty cash disbursements not supported by receipts evidencing expenditure.

The views of the commanding officer, St. Louis Ordnance Plant, with respect to the matter are stated in his letter of June 3, 1941, as follows:

1. Paragraph 26-c of the Manual of Instructions for the Administration of Cost-Plus-A-Fixed-Fee Contracts, Revised Draft March 1941, states that an itemized statement of articles purchased, if not in excess of $10 per item, will be acceptable to support vouchers for reimbursement of petty cash expenditures. 2. The local finance officer interprets his regulations as requiring him to have a receipt from the vendor for every article purchased for reimbursement, and declines to recognize the Contractor's certificate on itemized statements of petty cash expenditures.

3. This defeats the whole purpose of the petty cash and introduces delay in procurement and an auditing expenditure of time and effort not warranted by the sums involved. It further operates to relieve the contractor of much concern over the validity of his expenditures, which is not believed to be in accordance with the intent of the Cost-Plus-A-Fixed-Fee Contracts.

4. It is requested that an attempt be made through the Finance Officer, U. S Army, to coordinate the instructions issued finance officers in the field, with the administrative instructions quoted above.

Article IV-A-1, Title IV, of the subject contract provides with respect to reimbursement of expenditures thereunder as follows:

The Government shall bear all costs and expenses of every character and description incurred by the Contractor under title III, when approved in advance or subsequently ratified by the Contracting Officer,

As to the evidence necessary to support such reimbursement, Article IV-B-1-(b) of said title provides that:

The Government shall currently reimburse the Contractor for expenditures made in accordance with article IV-A of this title IV upon certification to and verification by the Contracting Officer of the original certified pay rolls for

labor, or the original paid invoices for materials, or other original papers, or other evidence satisfactory to the Contracting Officer.

Paragraph 26c of the March 1941 revised draft of the "Manual of Instructions for the Administration of Cost-Plus-a-Fixed-Fee

Contracts" is as follows:

c. Data Necessary to Support Vouchers for Petty Cash Expenditures

(1) An itemized statement of articles purchased, if not in excess of $10.00 per item, will be acceptable.

(2) The statement should contain a certificate by the officer of the contractor authorized to procure such petty cash articles to the effect that the articles were necessary, were used in connection with the performance of the contract, and that reimbursement therefor has not been previously claimed.

While, generally, vouchers covering reimbursement for expenditures incurred in connection with the performance of contracts such as here involved are required to be supported by proper receipts evidencing the expenditure, it would appear that where the sums involved are negligible expediency requires that a limitation be placed on the amount to be supported by such receipts. Consequently, where claims for reimbursement for cash expenditures in amounts of $10 or less are supported by properly itemized statements and certified by the proper officials, this office will not be required to object to such reimbursements solely by reason of the absence of such receipts unless it should appear in any particular case that the interests of the United States are adversely affected thereby.

While the two vouchers submitted by you have not been certified exactly in accordance with paragraph 26c of the Manual of Instructions, said vouchers are accompanied by properly itemized invoices and have been certified by duly authorized Government officials. Accordingly, the vouchers are returned herewith and payment thereon is authorized, if otherwise correct.

(B-12332)

PERIOD PAY-RETIRED CHIEF WARRANT OFFICERS-COUNTING OF . ACTIVE DUTY AFTER RETIREMENT

Active duty after retirement may not be counted in determining the period pay of a retired Navy chief warrant officer. To the extent that 10 Comp. Gen. 386 is contra, it no longer will be followed

Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, August 26, 1941:

There has been received your letter of July 9, 1941, transmitting a letter from the Paymaster General of the Navy, dated July 1, 1941, as follows:

1. The issuance of certificates of creditable records to chief warrant officers was first required by the Act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 578). This act provided

"That chief boatswains, chief gunners, chief machinists, chief carpenters, chief sailmakers, chief pharmacists, and chief pay clerks on the active list with creditable records, shall, after twelve years from date of commission, receive the pay and allowances, that are now or may hereafter be allowed a lieutenant, United States Navy." [Italics supplied.]

Paragraph 12 of Section 1 of the Act of June 10, 1922, as amended by Section 1 of the Act of February 16, 1929, established the pay periods to which "commissioned warrant officers with creditable records on the active list" are entitled.

2. Section 17 of the Act of June 10, 1922, as amended by the Act of May 26, 1928, provides that the pay of retired officers and warrant officers shall include increases for all active duty performed since retirement in the computation of their longevity pay and pay periods.

3. The Comptroller General in 10 Comp. Gen. 386 considered the right of Lieutenant (Chief Boatswain) Timothy Sullivan, U. S. N., Retired, who was placed on the retired list prior to July 1, 1922, to count active service subsequent to retirement in determining period pay to which entitled under the Act of February 16, 1929. Lieutenant Sullivan at time of retirement had commissioned service of 7 years, 5 months, and 29 days and subsequent to retirement performed active commissioned service of 3 years, 1 month, and 24 days. On August 5, 1930 the Secretary of the Navy certified that the record of this officer was creditable after completion of 10 years' commissioned service within the meaning of the provision of the Act of February 16, 1929.

4. The Comptroller General in 10 Comp. Gen., 386 stated: "Under the act of May 8, 1926, commissioned officers retired prior to July 1, 1922, are entitled to count service for longevity which could be counted on June 30, 1922. Under that act Lieutenant Sullivan was not entitled to count his commissioned service after retirement for determining his pay period but he could count all his naval service (enlisted, warrant, and commissioned) prior to retirement for longevity or period pay. By the act of May 26, 1928, Lieutenant Sullivan is entitled to count his commissioned service prior to and after retirement in determining his period pay. Counting such service gives him a total of 10 years, 7 months, and 23 days' commissioned service. Under the act of February 16, 1929, the pay of retired chief warrant officers of the Navy who were placed on retired list prior to February 16, 1929, may be computed upon the rates of pay authorized in that act. 9 Comp. Gen. 348." [Italics supplied.]

5. The Comptroller General in decision of October 22, 1940, considered the right of Lieutenant (Chief Machinist) Emmet L. Bourke, U. S. N. Retired, who was retired on January 1, 1937, to count active service subsequent to retirement in determining period pay under the Act of February 16, 1929. This officer reported for active duty on November 8, 1939, and on June 21, 1940. completed 20 years commissioned service, including 7 months and 14 days' service as a retired officer on active duty. In this decision the Comptroller General held that the pay of a chief warrant officer under the act of February 16, 1929, is fixed with respect to "creditable records on the active list" and stated that: Under this statute active duty after retirement would not be service on the active list and a certificate that such additional service after retirement was creditable would not warrant a change in the base or period pay of a chief warrant officer upon which his retired pay was fixed upon his retirement.

6. The decision of the Comptroller General of October 22, 1940, makes no reference to the decision in 10 Comp. Gen. 386 although it appears from the later decision that no retired chief warrant officer is entitled to count active duty performed subsequent to retirement in determining his period pay. It is requested that the question be submitted to the Comptroller General as to whether the decision in reference (h) is intended to reverse the decision in 10 Comp. Gen. 386.

« PreviousContinue »