to be within the reasonable contemplation of the act, in that it was "good business" for the Government to protect itself in this way. See 20 Comp. Dec. 479. This procedure for the protection of the Government was satisfactorily in effect from the effective date of the act, in 1910, until June 1, 1923, when the procedure of collecting the excess cost after shipment was prescribed by Army Regulations 30-960, paragraph 25. Paragraph 106, A. R. 30-960, May 24, 1938, in effect at the time this shipment was made, provides:

On permanent change of station, authorized baggage in excess of the prescribed weight allowance (see a above) may be shipped on the same bill of lading with the allowance, provided that the cost covering excess weight as determined under paragraph 24 will be borne by the owner

and paragraph 24 of the same regulations directs that:

The Finance Officer, U. S. Army, Washington, D. C. (or other finance officers as designated in par. 1, A. R. 35-6120), who settles the account will determine the excess amount to be collected and notify the owner, who, upon receipt of such notification, will promptly remit the amount so determined. If, after making remittance, as required, the owner for any reason considers the amount remitted as excessive, it is his privilege to file a claim with the General Accounting Office, Washington, D. C., for refund of such amount as he may consider to be due him.

Under these regulations the situation arises where a shipping quartermaster officer extends the credit of the Government to military personnel by shipping for them authorized baggage in excess of the prescribed weight allowance, and, after the transportation service has been rendered, the bill for the entire service is sent to the finance officer, Washington, D. C., for payment, and he is charged with the responsibility of notifying the owner and the collection of the amount he should remit as excess cost of transportation. There are no specific instructions in the regulations as to any conditions to be imposed by the quartermaster shipping officer, before shipment, to safeguard the interests of the Government by enforcing reimbursement of the excess costs. It is true paragraph 28, AR 30-960, requires persons desiring shipment of baggage at Government expense to furnish the shipping quartermaster with W. D., Q. M. O. Form No. 219. While the regulations do not require this form to show the owner's liability for excess cost, it is provided in the form executed July 15, 1941, by Lieutenant Colonel Sucher, that:

I hereby agree, as a condition precedent to such shipment, that, upon receipt of a statement showing the excess cost as determined by the finance officer paying the carrier's transportation account, I will either remit an amount sufficient to cover such cost, or permit the application of so much of my pay as may be necessary to cover such cost. *

The bill submitted for payment is for transportation services rendered on a Government transportation request. It has been uniformly held that where the baggage of an officer in excess of his authorized weight allowance has been shipped with the regulation allowance, under the authority of the cited 1910 statute, payment

should be made to the carrier for the entire service performed under such Government request, and, answering your first question specifically, you are advised payment, if otherwise correct, may be made to the carrier in due course, without regard to whether any reimbursement as determined by you, has been or is to be collected from the owner of the property. Specifically answering your second question, you are advised that the authorization to pay the carrier in full and in due course does not preclude a determination by proper authority that the finance officer or other War Department officer is pecuniarily responsible for his failure to collect the required reimbursement, as charged by the applicable regulations.

Decision B-19000, August 20, 1941, referred to by you, covered the matter of excess costs in connection with a shipment made September E, 1936, of household goods for one H. P. K. Agersborg, a biologist in the National Park Service, on permanent change of station from Washington, D. C., to Richmond, Va., under a statute which authorized the shipment of a weight not exceeding 5,000 pounds, and there was no statutory authority to ship excess weight with the change of station allowance at Government expense.

(B-19904)

PAY-ADDITIONAL-OVER 12 MONTHS' SERVICE

The provision in section 8 (b) of the Service Extension Act of 1941 limiting the $10 additional pay authorized by section 8 (a) of said act for Army, etc., enlisted men for each month of service in excess of 12 to the period of the unlimited emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941, does not require that the additional payments authorized by section 8 (a) be discontinued in time of war occurring during the continuance of such unlimited emergency.

Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of the Navy, December 12, 1941: There has been received your letter of December 9, 1941, as follows: Section 8 of the Service Extension Act of 1941, approved August 18, 1941 (Public Law 213-77th Congress), authorizes payment "during the period of the unlimited emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941," in addition to amounts otherwise payable, of $10 per month, inter alia, to any enlisted personnel of the Regular Army for each month of military service rendered by him after August 18, 1941, and after his total military service (rendered before or after such date) exceeds twelve months. This provision of law was held applicable to personnel of the Navy and Marine Corps by the Comptroller General's decision of October 29, 1941, B-19904 [21 Comp. Gen. 392].

In the cited decision of October 29, 1941, the question was considered, among others, as to whether or not, in view of the wording of paragraph (b) of section S of the Service Extension Act of 1941, paragraph (a) of said section 8 became inoperative in case of change from an unlimited emergency to a limited emergency or war. This specific question was not decided for the stated reason that it "is based on conditions which may not arise and it is believed proper that no decision with respect thereto should be rendered at this time."

In view of the declaration by Congress that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States (Senate Joint Resolution 116, passed by both the Senate and the House

of Representatives on December 8, 1941), your decision is now requested on the following specific question:

In view of the wording of paragraph (b) of section 8 of the Service Extension Act of 1941 (Public Law 213, approved August 18, 1941), does paragraph (a) of said section 8 become inoperative from and after December 8, 1941?

In view of the urgency of this matter, it is requested that your reply be expedited.

Section 8 of the Service Extension Act of 1941 (approved August 18, 1941), 55 Stat. 627, is as follows:

(a) Any person inducted into the land or naval forces of the United States for active training and service, under section 3 (b) of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 shall, in addition to the amounts otherwise payable to such person with respect to such training and service, be entitled to receive the sum of $10 for each month of such training and service in excess of twelve. The provisions of this section shall also apply (1) to any enlisted personnel of the National Guard of the United States or of any other reserve component of the Army of the United States ordered into the active military service under the authority of Public Resolution Numbered 96, approved August 27, 1940, or section 37a of the National Defense Act of 1916, as amended, for any such service so rendered by any such personnel, in excess of twelve months, and (2) to any enlisted personnel of the Regular Army for each month of military service rendered by him after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, and after his total military service (rendered before or after such date) exceeds twelve months.

(b) The provisions of this section shall be applicable only during the period of the unlimited emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941.

On May 27, 1941, the President issued a proclamation (No. 2487) which is, in part, as follows:

Now, Therefore, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, do proclaim that an unlimited national emergency confronts this country, which requires that its military, naval, air, and civilian defenses be put on the basis of readiness to repel any and all acts or threats of aggression directed toward any part of the Western Hemisphere.

Public Law 328 (77th Cong., 1st sess.), approved December 8, 1941, is as follows:

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

The provisions of the enactment declaring that a state of war exists between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan are consistent with the terms of the proclamation and indicate an intensification of the condition referred to by the President. Neither the terms of Public Law 328, nor the provisions or legislative history of the Service Extension Act of 1941, indicate that the Congress intended the payments authorized by section 8 (a), supra, to be discontinued in time of war should that occur during the con

tinuance of the unlimited national emergency proclaimed by the President May 27, 1941.

Accordingly, the unlimited national emergency declared by the President may be considered as still in existence for the purposes of section 8 of the Service Extension Act of 1941, and the said section is effective to authorize the continuation of payments in accordance with its terms on and after December 8, 1941.

(A-92119)

PAY-PROMOTIONS-EFFECT OF UNIFORM RETIREMENT DATE ACT Where a Navy enlisted man was advanced in rating between the date he would have been retired but for the uniform retirement date act of April 23, 1930, and the date of retirement under said act, his active-duty pay upon recall to active duty is required to be computed as though such advancement had not been made.

Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to the Secretary of the Navy, December 13, 1941:

There has been considered your letter of October 2, 1941, as follows:

The Navy Department has under consideration the question whether Thomas Burke, chief machinist's mate (AA), U. S. Navy, retired, may be carried in that rating with the active-duty pay thereof effective July 21, 1941, the date of his recall to active duty.

The records in this case show that Burke applied for transfer to the retired list of the regular Navy on November 29, 1937; that his transfer was approved December 10, 1937, that orders were issued on December 13, 1937, transferring him to the retired list of the regular Navy effective as of January 1, 1938; that when application for retirement was made, Burke was serving in the rating of machinist's mate, first class, with pay at $105 per month; that under date of December 7, 1937, the Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, authorized Burke's advancement to chief machinist's mate, acting appointment, effective December 31, 1937; that his rating was changed accordingly by the Commanding Officer, U. S. S. MUGFORD; that by virtue of his advancement in rating becoming effective on December 31, 1937, Burke received no pay of that rating while on the active list; that since his transfer to the retired list on January 1, 1938, he has been carried as a chief machinist's mate, acting appointment, and his retired pay has been computed on the active duty pay of machinist's mate, first class, the rating held by him when he applied for transfer to the retired list.

On the question whether Burke should be paid retired pay as a chief machinist's mate, acting appointment, or as a machinist's mate, first class, it was held in the Comptroller General's decision of March 21, 1938 (17 Comp. Gen. 759), that (syllabus):

"Under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1907, 34 Stat. 1217, the retired pay of an enlisted man is required to be computed on his active-duty pay in the grade held when application for retirement is made, and there is no authority for payment of increased retired pay based on a change in rating of a Navy enlisted man after the date of application for retirement."

Burke's retired pay is based on the active-duty pay of machinist's mate, first class, in accordance with the Comptroller General's decision, supra. However, he is now carried on the rolls as a chief machinist's mate, acting appointment, pursuant to authorized change in rating as aforesaid. In this connection attention is invited to section 5 of the Naval Appropriation Act, 1942 (Public Law, 48, 77th Cong.), which provides:

"During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1942, all retired officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, and retired officers and enlisted men of those services, shall, when on active duty, receive full pay and allowances."

The Navy Department is in doubt as to whether the "full pay and allowances" to which Burke may be entitled from and after July 1, 1941, the date of his recall to active duty, should be the active-duty pay and allowances currently payable in the case of a chief machinist's mate, acting appointment, of the same length of service in the Regular Navy, or whether he is limited while on active duty to the pay and allowances currently payable to a machinist's mate, first class, the pay grade of Burke on the retired list. Your decision accordingly is requested as to the correct rate of active-duty pay and allowances to which Burke is entitled effective July 21, 1941, the date of his recall to active duty.

The act of April 23, 1930, 46 Stat. 253, is as follows:

That hereafter retirement authorized by law of Federal personnel of whatever class, civil, military, naval, judicial, legislative, or otherwise, and for whatever cause retired, shall take effect on the 1st day of the month following the month in which said retirement would otherwise be effective, and said 1st day of the month for retirements hereafter made shall be for all purposes in lieu of such date for retirement as may now be authorized; except that the rate of active or retired pay or allowance shall be computed as of the date retirement would have occurred if this act had not been enacted.

SEC. 2. This act shall become effective July 1, 1930. All laws or parts of laws, insofar as in conflict herewith, are repealed.

Except for the provisions of the above-quoted statute, Burke's retirement would have been effective prior to December 31, 1937, the stated effective date of Bureau of Navigation orders of December 7, 1937, announcing his advancement to the rating of chief machinist's mate, acting appointment. The sole purpose of the above-quoted act was to obtain uniformity and simplify computations, and in accordance with that purpose the act expressly provides "that the rate of active or retired pay or allowance shall be computed as of the date retirement would have occurred if this act had not been enacted." The fact this provision specifies that the rate of both active and retired pay or allowance shall be computed as of the date retirement would have occurred but for the provisions of the act is indicative of a legislative intent that no administrative action should be effective to change the status of an individual for purposes of pay between the date his retirement would have been effective except for the provisions of the act of April 23, 1930, and the date his retirement is required to be made effective under the provisions of the said act. In other words, the uniform retirement date act was not intended to be used as a medium for promotions but, on the contrary, its use as such is expressly prohibited.

It follows that the advance of Burke to the rating of chief machinist's mate, acting appointment, was not effective to change his pay status in any way, and his active-duty pay as a retired enlisted man is required to be computed as though such advancement had not been made.