Indicated in the terms of their appointment. If your decisions interpreting the leave regulations are held to be applicable to this type of employment, it would be necessary to deny vacation leave to these employees.

In view of the nature of this employment, some doubt exists as to what basis of automatic increases should be applied to these employees, assuming that they are otherwise qualified, under the so-called Ramspeck-Mead Act approved August 1, 1941. Take, for example, the doctor in the Health Department, P-6, one-eighth time, and assuming that he is otherwise qualified, it would appear that he would be entitled to one-eighth of the regular automatic promotion within his grade, effective October 1, 1941, and that other part-time employees should receive similar treatment.

The Commissioners would appreciate advice from you (1) as to whether they are correct in denying annual and sick leave to employees of the nature described above, and (2) whether the automatic promotions authorized by the Ramspeck-Mead Act approved August 1, 1941, shall be allowed these employees in the several grades in proportion to the time actually employed; that is, should a half-time employee, otherwise qualified ($1,620 full time), who but for the fact that he is rendering part-time services receive a $30.00 step-up instead of $60.00, or should he be required to serve 36 months before he would receive a $60.00 within-grade promotion.

Section 1 of the Annual Leave Act, and section 1 of the Sick Leave Act, both acts approved March 14, 1936, 49 Stat. 1161, 1162, expressly include employees of the District of Columbia (with certain exceptions not here material). Section 7 of each of the said statutes provides:

The leave of absence herein provided for shall be administered under such regulations as the President may prescribe, so as to obtain, so far as practicable, uniformity in the application of this act.

Pursuant to this express statutory authority the President promulgated annual leave and sick leave regulations which have the force and effect of law. Section 19 (f) (2) of the Annual Leave Regulations, Executive Order No. 8384, dated March 29, 1940, and section 23 (g) (2) of the Sick Leave Regulations, Executive Order No. 8385, dated March 29, 1940, expressly exclude part-time employees from the benefits of annual and sick leave in the following terms:

These regulations shall not apply to:

*

part-time or intermittent employees;

This provision of the regulation is clear and unambiguous and admits of no construction.

In decision of November 17, 1938, 18 Comp. Gen. 457, it was held as follows (quoting from the third paragraph of the syllabus):

Employees appointed for service limited to definite portions of each day, week, or month, who perform service in accordance with such appointments, are to be considered part-time employees under the annual and sick leave regulations effective January 1, 1938, and not entitled to leave under the annual and sick leave acts of March 14, 1936, 49 Stat. 1161 and 1162, respectively.

In addition to the decisions cited in your letter, see also, decision of June 29, 1939, 18 Comp. Gen. 1001, in which it was held as follows at page 1003:

It is understood from your submission that the employees here involved are required to be on duty or available for duty for only a percentage of full time, in some cases as much as 90 percent of the time worked by a full-time employee; that they may have no established workday; and that the salary rates fixed for

the positions are based on a percentage of the classification act rates for similar full-time positions, the evaluation of the percentage salary rate being based on the two elements of "service" viz, actual duty and availability for duty. 11 Comp. Gen. 260; 17 id. 303. That is to say, it is understood that the appointments do not call for full-time "service" and the employees are not paid full-time salary rates.

If these be the facts the employees unquestionably are part-time employees and have been regarded as such by this office in the cited decisions and are expressly excluded by the cited leave regulations from leave privileges notwithstanding they may work or be available for duty a greater amount of time during a year than a full-time employee when there is deducted the statutory leave during which full-time employees are authorized to be absent from duty.

In applying this definite rule of law no consideration may be given to the possibility that the part-time professional employees might use their time off from duty "for the purpose of adequately informing themselves of current medical practices" (quoting from your letter), or to their generosity in furnishing services in addition to those called for in the terms of their appointments. The matter of whether attendance at conventions, mentioned in your letter, is to be regarded as placing the employees on official duty during the period of such attendance is a matter for determination by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. See the appropriation item "traveling expenses in attending conventions when authorized by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia" under the heading "Contingent and Miscellaneous Expenses" appearing in the appropriation act approved July 1, 1941, Public Law 148, 55 Stat. 503.

Accordingly, question (1) in the concluding paragraph of your letter must be, and is, answered in the affirmative.

Regarding the second question presented, there is particularly for noting the decision of December 15, 1941, to the Postmaster General, B-22169, 21 Comp. Gen. 569, in which it was held as follows:

* Employees paid on an annual basis occupying permanent positions within the scope of the compensation schedules fixed by the Classification Act who are employed on a part-time or when actually employed basis are entitled to the benefits of the act of August 1, 1941. Decision of October 27, 1941, B-20925. Accordingly, in such cases the prescribed period of 18 or 30 months should be computed on the basis of the actual time served rather than the calendar month. An employee working part time or on the basis of when actually employed must render 18 or 30 months (as the case may be) of actual service computed on the basis of full time per month the same class of employees must serve without having received an equivalent increase in compensation to become eligible for a within-grade salary advancement.

In said decision the Postmaster General was specifically advised that charmen and charwomen who worked five-eighths of each workday of the year were authorized to be credited with actual service, five-eighths of the year, or 72 months, in computing the prescribed period of 18 months after they had been transferred to positions the compensation of which was paid on a per annum basis. There is no authority under the Classification Act as amended by the act of August 1, 1941, Public Law 200, 55 Stat. 613, or otherwise, to com

470350m-42-43

pute the part-time compensation of part-time employees other than on the basis of one of the per annum rates prescribed by the Classification Act if the salary for the position is paid on a per annum basis. 11 Comp. Gen. 211; id. 217; 17 id. 303. Neither is there any authority to advance the basic salary of a part-time employee within his grade at the beginning of any quarter under the plan prescribed under the act of August 1, 1941, for periodic increases in compensation (additional meritorious positions not being involved) either more or less than one increment or step of $60, $100, $200, or $250 prescribed by the Classification Act for the grade. That is to say, the salary for full-time service is the rate of compensation to be advanced under the law, the part-time salary rate to be computed on that basis under the rules stated in the prior decisions of this office on and after the effective date of such advance.

Referring to the illustration stated in the penultimate paragraph of your letter, there would be no authority to grant a within-grade salary advancement of $25 per annum representing one-eighth of $200 per annum, the step in grade P-6, but the employee must wait until he has actually served sufficient time to authorize advancing the salary rate for full-time service, one step of $200. This employee would be entitled to a within-grade salary advancement based on $200 for full-time services, if otherwise qualified, at the beginning of the next quarter after he has completed 240 months (8×30) of service since his last equivalent increase of compensation from any

cause.

Referring to the concluding paragraph of your letter, the employee could not be advanced $30 but would be entitled to a withingrade salary advancement based on $60 for full-time service at beginning of the next quarter after he has completed 36 months (2×18) of service since his last equivalent increase in compensation from any cause, thereby making his compensation $840 (one-half of $1,680) per annum.

(B-22473)

QUARTERS RENTAL, ETC., ALLOWANCES-DEPENDENTS—

STEPMOTHERS

The term "mother" as used in section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922, as amended, defining the dependents on account of whom military, etc., personnel may be paid rental, subsistence, etc., allowances does not include a stepmother. Assistant Comptroller General Elliott to Ensign D. G. Cone, United States Navy, January 8, 1942:

There has been received your request for decision whether you are authorized to credit Felipe Irigoyen, OC2c, F-4-C, U. S. P. R., with a money allowance for quarters for a dependent stepmother.

The act of October 17, 1940, 54 Stat. 1205, provides:

That each enlisted man of the first, second, or third grade of the Army of the United States in the active military service of the United States, having a dependent as defined in sections 8 and 8a, title 37, United States Code, shall, under such regulations as the President may prescribe, be entitled to receive, for any period during which public quarters are not provided and available for his dependent, the money allowance for quarters authorized by law to be granted to each enlisted man not furnished quarters in kind.

The dependents defined in sections 8 and 8a, title 37, U. S. C. (section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 627, as amended), are (1) a lawful wife; (2) unmarried legitimate children, or adopted children under 21 years of age in fact dependent on the person claiming the allowance; or (3) the mother of the enlisted man provided she is in fact dependent on him for her chief support. You are advised that the term mother as used in section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922, supra, does not include a stepmother. See 25 Comp. Dec. 454, 3 Comp. Gen. 820, 36 MS. Comp. Gen. 997, A-4662, August 27, 1924; 178 id. 126, A-75357, June 1, 1936; 234 id. 338, B-14463, February 6, 1941.

Accordingly you are not authorized to credit the enlisted man with a money allowance for quarters for a dependent stepmother.

(B-22862)

CLASSIFICATION-JURISDICTION-DEPARTMENTAL POSITIONS OUTSIDE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The words "in the District of Columbia" appearing in the Classification Act of 1923, and subsequent amendments thereto, in connection with the words "departmental service" do not limit the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission under the classification act to departmental positions located within the geographical limits of the District of Columbia, and, therefore, the jurisdiction and allocating authority of the Commission will be retained over positions in departmental offices transferred to locations outside of the District of Columbia.

Comptroller General Warren to the President, United States Civil Service Commission, January 8, 1942:

I have your letter of December 31, 1941, as follows:

In connection with the transfer of departmental or headquarters offices of certain agencies to locations outside of the District of Columbia, the question arises whether the present jurisdiction and allocating authority of the Civil Service Commission under the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, will be maintained notwithstanding their geographic location outside the District of Columbia.

The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the italicized phrases in the following quotations from the Classification Act of 1923. Section 4 of the Classification Act provides: "That after consultation with the Board, and in accordance with the uniform procedure prescribed by it, the head of each department shall allocate all positions in his department in the District of Columbia to their appropriate grades in the compensation schedules and shall fix the rate of compensation of each employee thereunder, in accordance with the rules prescribed in section 6 herein. Such allocations shall be reviewed and may be

revised by the Board, and shall become final upon their approval by said Board. Section 5 of the Act provides, "That the compensation schedules shall apply only to civilian employees in the departments within the District of Columbia (Under Title V of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, the term "Board"

now means the Civil Service Commission.)

On May 21, 1941, in 20 Comp. Gen. 803, your office interpreted the provisions of the Naval Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1942. An extract from this decision follows: "The appropriation limitation on the total number of civilian employees 'in the Navy Department proper, at Washington' refers to the departmental service as distinguished from the field service." In decision of January 11, 1938, 17 Comp. Gen. 564, 565, it was held:

律

"In decision of October 19, 1925, 5 Comp. Gen. 272, 273, it was stated: What is known as a "field" force is engaged, directly or indirectly, in executing the laws locally, while a "departmental" force is engaged in general supervisory and administrative direction and control of the various field forces. Various general laws, such as the postal laws, must be executed in the District of Columbia as well as elsewhere. A force engaged exclusively in the local execution of such laws in the District of Columbia is a field force as much so as a like force in any other section of the country. It is only in this sense that the term "field" force may properly be applied to the District. See discussion

in decisions reported in 21 Comp. Dec. 709, and 27 Comp. Dec. 731.'

"Conversely, a force engaged exclusively in departmental work, that is, in general supervision and administrative direction and control of the various field forces, even though with headquarters outside of the District of Columbia—in this instance at Baltimore-is nevertheless a departmental force as much so as the departmental force in the District of Columbia.

"Similarly here, the restriction upon the total number of civilian employees in the departmental service of the Navy Department would be applicable even though such departmental employees were temporarily stationed at Arlington or at any other place outside of the District of Columbia."

The effect of these decisions is that a force engaged exclusively in the local execution of various general laws, which must be carried out in the District of Columbia as well as elsewhere, is a "field" force, and that a force engaged exclusively in departmental work, that is, in "general supervisory and administrative direction and control of the various field forces," is a departmental force, regardless in both instances of the physical location of such forces either within or outside of the District of Columbia.

The phrases "in the District of Columbia" and "within the District of Columbia," as used in the Classification Act, were, in the judgment of the Commission, intended to be descriptive of departmental or headquarters offices rather than limitations based solely on geographic boundaries. The distinction has always been that between the departmental and the field services rather than between offices within and outside the District of Columbia. For example, there are field positions in the District of Columbia to which the Commission's allocation jurisdiction does not apply at present. Decisions of your office, such as that of January 9, 1940, 19 Comp. Gen. 631, are in consonance with this view.

We are inclined to the conclusion that the phrase "in the District of Columbia" is only for collateral consideration in determining the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission under the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, and that the question of jurisdiction should primarily be determined on the basis of whether positions are properly "departmental" or "field." If this conclusion is correct, then it would follow that, regardless of shifts of departmental forces from the District of Columbia, the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, under the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, would continue to apply.

The interpretation of the coverage clauses of the Classification Act of 1923. as amended, as herein set forth is strengthened by the fact that section 2 of the Brookhart Act of July 3, 1930, applies to "civilian positions in the field services." If departmental positions subject to the Classification Act are transferred out of the District of Columbia and still involve the performance of departmental functions and responsibilities, they cannot properly be regarded as "positions in the field services," and hence are not subject to section 2 of the Brookhart Act. Also, if they are regarded as being outside of the provisions of the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, by virtue of their mere geographic location, then neither the provisions of the Classification Act applicable to departmental positions nor the provisions of section 2 of the Brookhart Act appli