#### HAROLD P. PARMELEE v. THE UNITED STATES.

[No. 34695.

Decided February 21, 1921.]

*On the Proofs.*

*Naval officer; mileage.*— Where a naval officer, by an order issued by competent authority, is detached from the vessel on which he is serving and authorized to proceed at his own expense to loin another vessel and to report to the senior officer present for duty, he is entitled to mileage,

*jgame.*— Where a naval officer, by an order issued by competent authority, is detailed from the vessel on which he is serving and is given the option of proceeding to a designated place and reporting for duty, or to, consider the order revoked and to return the same for cancellation, he is not entitled to mileage.

*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. George A. King*for the plaintiff. *King & King*were on the briefs.

*Mr. John G. Ewing,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attor•ney General Frank Davis, Jr.,*for the defendant.

■The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The plaintiff, Harold P. Parmelee, entered the Naval Academy on June 19, 1909; graduated June 6, 1913, and *126commissioned an ensign; served on the U. S. S. *Maryland*as signal officer and junior watch and division officer, and served as an instructor at the United States naval training station, Portsmouth, Ya.; served on the U. S. S. *Louisiana*as watch and division officer and assistant engineer officer, and on the U. S. S. *Milwauhee*as watch and division officer; on the U. S. S. *Stewart*as chief engineer and senior engineer officer; on the U. S. S. *South Dakota*as senior watch and division officer and navigator; at the United States Naval Academy as instructor in the department of marine engineering and naval construction; and on the U. S. S. *Virginia*as first lieutenant. He resigned November 17,1919, with the grade of lieutenant commander, temporary, having passed through the grades of junior lieutenant and senior lieutenant.

II. January 17, 1914, an order was issued by the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation to plaintiff, then serving on board the U. S. S. *Annapolis,*where he was temporarily detailed from the *Maryland*as target umpire at San Diego, Calif. Said order was first transmitted to him by radio and was so received by him, as follows:

“ 1. Upon the arrival of the *Maryland*at a port in the United States you will regard yourself detached from duty on board that vessel, and you are authorized to proceed to Norfolk, Va., at your own expense, and report to the commandant, navy yard, for temporary duty on board the receiving'ship at Norfolk, Ya.

“ 2. You are authorized to delay for a period of fourteen days in reporting in obedience to these orders.

“ 3. This delay counts as leave, and you will notify the bureau of the date of commencement and keep it advised of your address.

*“*4. In case you do not desire to proceed to Norfolk, Va., at your own expense you will regard these orders as revoked and return them to the bureau for cancellation.”

Plaintiff immediately, by direction of the commanding officer of the *Annapolis,*left that vessel at San Diego, Calif., and proceeded to San Pedro, Calif., and joined the U. S. S. *Maryland,*the vessel to which he had been regularly attached, and on January 29,1914, received the same orders in writing. After detachment from the *Maryland*he boarded the first available train for Norfolk, via Chicago and Washington. *127At the latter city he spent the delay of 14 days authorized in his orders, reporting at Norfolk February 20, 1914. On boarding the receiving ship he was at once assigned to duty as instructor of enlisted men.

The distance traveled by plaintiff by the shortest usually traveled route from San Pedro, Calif., to Norfolk, Va., was 3,114 miles, for which mileage at the rate of 8 cents a mile would amount to $249.12.

III. May 3, 1916, an order was issued by the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation addressed to plaintiff, as follows:

“ 1. You are hereby detached from duty on board the *Louisiana*and authorized to proceed at your own expense to such port in which the *Milwaukee*may be, to report to the senior officer present afloat for duty on board that vessel.

“ 2. You are authorized to delay for a period of one month in reporting on the *Milwaukee.*This delay will count as leave of absence, and you will furnish the Bureau of Navigation with a statement showing the dates of commencement and expiration thereof, and also keep it advised of your address.”

Plaintiff received this order on board the U. S. S. Louisiana, then in the navy yard at Norfolk, Va., about May 6, 1916. Immediately upon detachment from that vessel he proceeded by the first available train to San Diego, Calif., stopping at Waco, Tex., in order to spend the period of one month’s delay authorized by said order and an extension thereof authorized by later orders. Upon arriving at San Diego he found that the U. S. S. *Milwaukee*had sailed hurriedly for Pacific-Mexican ports. He therefore went immediately aboard the collier *Mars,*taking passage on that vessel for La Paz, Mexico, where he reported on board the U. S. S. *Hull*to await the arrival of the *Milwaukee.*Upon arrival of the latter vessel he reported on board her for duty in accordance with his orders.

Plis orders to the *Milwaukee*were at the request of her commanding officer, who had expressed a desire to the department to have plaintiff assigned for service on that vessel with him.

The shortest usually traveled route from Norfolk, Va., to San Diego, Calif., 3,171 miles, mileage for which, at the rate of 8 cents per mile, would amount to $253.68.

*128IY. From March 8, 1918, to November 17, 1919, plaintiff' was an officer in the United States Navy on active duty in. time of war and was in the military service as defined by the-soldiers’ and sailors’ civil relief act of March 1, 1918, 40 Stat., 440, 443.

Y. The journeys for which claim is herein made were performed entirely at the expense of plaintiff, and he has received no reimbursement of mileage or otherwise for them. The total amount of mileage at the rate of 8 cents per mile; aggregates $502.80.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

The item upon which judgment is rendered is, in the-opinion of the court, governed by the cases of *Katzer,*52 C. Cls., 32, and Knowles, 52 C. Cls., 520. As to the other item-claimed, it appears that the plaintiff was informed that if he-did not desire to proceed to Norfolk, Va., at his own expense he should regard the orders as revoked and return them to the bureau for cancellation. This evidently was not an order such as was discussed in the *Katzer case,*supra, and does not. justify an extension of the rule therein stated.

Judgment will be entered for plaintiff in the sum of $253.68.

The petition as to the other item is dismissed.