tract. Also, it is stipulated that in the purchase of passenger-carrying motor vehicles and supplies manufactured by the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., the applicable statutory limitations and restrictions are to be observed. In other words, it appears that the procedure which would be required under the theory on which the Notice of Exception, dated July 21, 1941, supra, was based already has been adopted by the Construction Division of the Quartermaster General's Office and is being followed generally in connection with the performance of costplus-a-fixed-fee contracts. There appears to be no doubt but that such a procedure is a salutary one in that it will result in the saving to the Government of large sums of money without in any way seriously delaying the work of expediting the strengthening of the national defense.

(B-20347)

TRANSPORTATION-HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES Upon change of station of its employees, the Navy Department may procure the packing, crating, etc., of their household effects, and ship the effects on Government bills of lading, even though such effects be located at or shipped to points outside the corporate limits of the employees' duty station, provided any excess cost of such shipments be immediately collected from the employees, but where a second shipment is made after the Government had previously shipped a substantial portion of an employee's effects, the employee should make the shipment on commercial bill of lading and file claim in this office for so much of the transportation and incidental packing, crating, etc., cost as is properly chargeable to the Government. 19 Comp. Gen. 476, distinguished, and 20 Comp. Gen. 568, amplified.

Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of the Navy, October 2, 1941: I have your letter of September 5, 1941, reference L19/L21 (410821) K, requesting a decision of the questions stated in a letter from the Chief of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, Navy Department, dated August 21, 1941, as follows:

1. A definite procedure is in effect for the handling of household effects of Navy personnel by the various naval activities. Contracts are entered into for packing, crating and hauling of such effects, when necessary, provided the effects are located within the established zone limits as described in article 1882, Bureau of Supplies and Accounts Manual.

2. It is the present practice also to furnish Government bills of lading for use in effecting shipments notwithstanding the fact that the effects to be transported may be located outside the established zone limits, thus obviating the necessity of payment of transportation charges by the personnel concerned. In case of excess costs collection is made by checkage of the pay account of the owner of the effects.

3. With the passage of the act of October 10, 1940 (Public No. 839, 76th Congress) and the act of March 17, 1941 (Public No. 13, 77th Congress, first session) making Navy appropriations available for the packing, crating, drayage, transportation and unpacking of household effects of civilian employees of the Navy, it was contemplated to use the same contracts and follow the same procedure in the handling of household effects of civilians as that followed for Navy personnel.

4. Since the zones established at such points where naval activities are located do not coincide with the duty station limits as defined in the Standardized Government Travel Regulations as amended, and as the decision of the Comptroller General, B-14917, dated March 27, 1941 [20 Comp. Gen. 568], imposes certain restrictions, it is requested that decision be obtained from the Comptroller General on the following:

(a) Whether the supply officer of a navy yard or naval station may arrange for the handling of household effects of a civilian employee entitled thereto, when such effects are located within the zone limits as established for Navy personnel but beyond the duty station limits as defined in the Standardized Government Travel Regulations as amended.

(b) Whether a naval activity may furnish Government bills of lading for the transportation of household effects of civilian employees, if shipment is authorized under existing regulations, regardless of the location of the effects, provided adequate provision is made to collect from the owner any excess costs not contemplated by Executive Order 8588, dated November 7, 1940.

Under the act of October 10, 1940, 54 Stat. 1105, payment of expenses of transportation of household goods and personal effects, if otherwise authorized by law, may be made, subject to rules and regulations prescribed by the President, "when specifically authorized or approved by the head of the department or establishment concerned." This provision would seem to contemplate regulations by the head of the department or establishment concerned, pursuant to the basic laws applicable to the shipment of the household goods or personal effects of civilian employees of the particular department or establishment concerned, and payment is authorized in such cases when shipment is made in accordance with the regulations established by the head of the department concerned. If there be no regulations then there is authority in the head of the department to approve such payment, subject, of course, to the rules and regulations prescribed by the President.

It is proposed to extend to civilian employees of the Navy Department the existing provisions of naval regulations for shipment of the baggage or household goods of officers, warrant officers, nurses, and certain grades of enlisted men. The doubt which prompted the present submission apparently arises from certain language in the decision of March 27, 1941, 20 Comp. Gen. 568.

The regulations prescribed by the President contain a provision for the use of Government bills of lading. See section 6 of Executive Order 8588 dated November 7, 1940. In the decision of March 27, 1941, citation was made to 19 Comp. Gen. 476, a case in which the authorized shipment was for a short distance, the goods were in storage at a much greater distance in the opposite direction, and involved also a comparison of the cost of packing and crating at the old station with the cost of packing and crating at the place where the goods were in storage. The answer to the question contemplated that where unusual conditions exist involving comparative costs the shipment should be by commercial bill of lading and adjustment of the claim arising should not be made by a disbursing officer but should

be submitted to the Claims Division of this office to obviate possible disagreements as to the proper basis for adjustment. When the language used in the decision of March 27, 1941, is considered in the light of the above facts and circumstances it is apparent that said decision was not intended to make any change in the practice followed in many of the departments of shipping the household goods of civilian employees on Government bills of lading, any excess in weight, or excess in cost by reason of the fact that the shipment was made from a place outside of the municipality or city within the corporate limits of which the employee was stationed and from which shipment was authorized to be made, or by reason of the fact that the shipment was made to a place not within the corporate limits of the station to which the employee was being transferred, to be paid for by the employee immediately upon ascertainment of the excess cost to the Government so arising. The questions presented in the above quoted letter are answered in the affirmative, with the understanding, however, that any increased cost resulting from such use of Government bills of lading will be immediately ascertained and collected from the employee concerned. It is further to be understood that where a second shipment for the employee is made in the circumstances recited and a substantial portion of his authorized allowance has been shipped by the Government as a primary shipment on his change of station, there is no authority to use Government bills of lading for, or pay any charges in connection with, such second shipment. If and when any amount is believed to be payable by the Government in connection with such second shipment on the employee's change of station, claim therefor should be presented by the employee to this office after shipment by him on commercial bill of lading and payment by him of any cost of packing, crating and draying.

(B-20500)

COMPENSATION-WITHIN-GRADE

PROMOTIONS-ELIGIBILITY

PE

RIOD; RESTORATION OF GRADE AND SALARY AFTER DEMOTION AS “EQUIVALENT INCREASE”

Eligibility for promotion as of October 1, 1941, when the first within-grade compensation increases become effective under the act of August 1, 1941, is for determination on the basis of service rendered during the last preceding 18 or 30 months, as the case may be, and the amount of the increase is to be determined by the rates applicable to the particular grade in which the employee is serving at the time he becomes eligible for the increase.

If during the 18 months' period preceding the effective date-October 1, 1941– of the first within-grade compensation increases under the act of August 1, 1941, an employee was promoted from CAF-3 at $1,620 per annum to CAF-4 at $1,800, reduced to CAF-3 at $1,620, and then again promoted to CAF-4 at $1,800, he has received an “equivalent increase in compensation"

during the past 18 months within the meaning of the act and is not entitled to a within-grade increase on October 1, 1941, and the 18 months' period necessary for eligibility to a further promotion under the act must begin to run from the date of the last promotion to CAF-4 at $1,800. Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of War, October 2, 1941:

I have your letter of September 11, 1941, as follows:

Reference is made to Public Law 200, 77th Congress, which further amends the Classification Act of 1923 as amended, and provides in part as follows:

"(b) All employees compensated on a per annum basis, and occupying permanent positions within the scope of the compensation schedules fixed by this act, who have not attained the maximum rate of compensation for the grade in which their positions are respectively allocated, shall be advanced in compensation successively to the next higher rate within the grade at the beginning of the next quarter, following the completion of: (1) Each eighteen months of service if such employees are in grades in which the compensation increments are $60 or $100, or (2) each thirty months of service if such employees are in grades in which the compensation increments are $200 or $250, subject to the following conditions:

"(1) That no equivalent increase in compensation from any cause was received during such period, except increase made pursuant to subsection (f) of this section; *

Your decision is requested as to the following question:

1. An employee may be promoted from CAF-3 at $1,620 per annum to CAF-4 at $1,800 per annum, reduced to CAF-3 at $1,620 per annum to another position and then again promoted from CAF-3 at $1,620 per annum to CAF-4 at $1,800 per annum. Is the Department required to compute the eighteen-month period of service from the first promotion or from the last promotion?

By the terms of section 2 of the act referred to the President is authorized to issue regulations for administering said section. Executive Order No. 8882 of September 3, 1941, issued pursuant to this authority, contains a provision as follows:

(d) "Equivalent increase in compensation" shall mean any increase or increases which in total are equal to or greater than the compensation increment in the lowest grade in which the employee has served during the time period of eighteen or thirty months, as the case may be.

It appears clear from the terms of section 7 of the Classification Act of 1923 as amended by section 2 of the act here involved, and from the above-quoted provision of the Executive order, that eligibility for promotion as of October 1, 1941-when the first increases under the act become effective-is for determination on the basis of service rendered during the last preceding 18 or 30 months, as the case may be, and that the increase shall be on the basis of the rate of compensation applicable to the particular grade in which the employee is serving at the time he becomes eligible for the increase. In this connection attention is invited to subsection (e) of the said section 7 as amended by section 2 of the act of August 1, 1941, 55 Stat. 614, reading as follows:

(e) Employees eligible under subsection (b) for compensation advancement by reason of service immediately preceding the effective date of this amendment shall be advanced to the next higher rate of compensation within the grade to which their positions are respectively allocated at the beginning of the next quarter immediately following the effective date of this amendment.

Thus, in the case presented in your letter, the employee's eligibility for advancement in salary under the act must be measured by the last 18 months of service prior to October 1, 1941; and if he be entitled to any advancement it must be an advancement in the CAF-4 grade at $1,800 to which he is assigned as of that date. It will thus be noted that the answer to the question presented depends somewhat upon the dates of the changes in salary or the length of the various periods during which he received the different rates of salary. If the last promotion to $1,800 in CAF-4 occurred on or prior to April 1, 1940, the employee clearly would be entitled to a promotion under the act as of October 1, 1941, if otherwise eligible. On the other hand, if he was receiving $1,620 in CAF-3 on April 1, 1940, it seems clear that since he is now receiving $1,800 in CAF-4 he must be regarded as having received an "equivalent increase" during the past 18 months-an increase of $60 or more for an employee in CAF-3 at $1,620 or in CAF-4 at $1,800 constituting an "equivalent increase" within the meaning of section 7 (b) (1) of the Classification Act of 1923 as amended by section 2 of the act of August 1, 1941. If all the salary rate changes as outlined in your letter occurred within the 18 months' period prior to October 1, 1941-that is, if the employee was receiving $1,620 in CAF-3 on April 1, 1940, was thereafter increased to CAF-4 at $1,800, was then reduced to CAF-3 at $1,620 and then again promoted to CAF-4 at $1,800—it is clear that his compensation has been increased during the past 18 months. In such a case the 18 months' period necessary for eligibility to further promotion under the act must begin to run from the date of the last increase to CAF-4 at $1,800. The 18 months' period may not be regarded as beginning on the date of the first increase to CAF-4 at $1,800 because at the end of such 18 months' period it could not be accurately stated that no "equivalent increase" had been received during the past 18 months-an increase of $180 already having been received. This conclusion may not be regarded as altered by the fact that the service in CAF-4 at $1,800 was merely interrupted by a temporary intervening period of service in CAF-3 at $1,620. The fact is that the reduction resulted in a change of salary status and it is only by virtue of a subsequent increase in compensation that the employee now is serving in CAF-4 at $1,800. In subsection (b) (1) of section 7 of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, it is provided in clear and unambiguous terms that one of the conditions of eligibility for an increase under the act is that the employee shall not have had an equivalent increase in compensation "from any cause" during the preceding 18 or 30 months' period, as the case may be.

It is believed the above fully answers the question presented.