Source: https://m.openjurist.org/263/us/29
Timestamp: 2019-11-14 19:24:54
Document Index: 520635817

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2900', '§ 2632', '§ 2900', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 514']

263 US 29 Denby v. Berry | OpenJurist
263 U.S. 29 - Denby v. Berry
263 US 29 Denby v. Berry
44 S.Ct. 74
68 L.Ed. 148
DENBY, Secretary of the Navy,
Mr. Geo. Ross Hull, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.
The Naval Reserve Force was established by the Naval Appropriation Act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat. c. 417, pp. 556, 587 [Comp. St. § 2900 1/2 a et seq.]). By its provisions, the Naval Reserve Force was to be composed of citizens of the United States who by enrollment therein or transfer thereto should obligate themselves to serve in the Navy in time of war or during an emergency declared by the President. Enrollment was to be for four years. A clothing gratuity was allowed and retainer pay of $12 a year or more according to class was to be paid to those who kept the Secretary advised of their whereabouts. The same grades and ranks were provided up to the rank of Lieutenant Commander as existed in the rank and file of the Navy. The President commissioned the commissioned officers. The Secretary issued warrants to the warrant officers. During peace, or when no national emergency existed, members might be discharged at their own request on return of the clothing gratuity. Members might be ordered into active service in the Navy by the President in time of war, or when in his opinion a national emergency existed, and might be required to perform such service throughout the war, or until the national emergency ceased to exist. Enrolled members were to be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders for the government of the regular Navy only during such time as they might be required in the active service. The members of the Force, when in active service, were entitled to the same pay, allowance, gratuities, and other emoluments as men of the same rank or grade in the regular Navy, but when on inactive duty they were entitled only to what was expressly provided in the act. The Secretary of the Navy was to make all necessary and proper regulations not inconsistent with law for the administration of these Naval Reserve Force provisions.
This section was adopted in 1861 (12 Stat. c. 42, p. 291), and applied to regular officers in the Navy. The retirement from active service, and complete retirement provided in the section, are to be understood as they apply to such officers. Officers in the Regular Navy who have become unfit for service before the retiring age are subject to three methods of retirement. One is when the disability is in the line of duty, and their retirement pay is three-fourths of the pay of their rank on active duty. The other two are when the disability is not incurred in line of duty; and in one the retirement pay is furlough or one-half of leave of absence pay of their rank in active service, and in the other there is full retirement to civilian life on a year's full pay of their rank. Sections 1453, 1454, R. S. (Comp. St. §§ 2632, 2633). Section 1455 was enacted to prevent an abuse of the power of retirement by superior officers. Section 1455, R. S., has been made applicable to officers on active service in the Naval Reserve Force when disabled in line of duty, first by implication in a proviso of the Act of July 1, 1918 (40 Stat. 704, 710, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 2900 1/2 a [15 1/2]), 'that no member of the Naval Reserve Force shall be eligible for retirement other than for physical disability incurred in line of duty,' and then, after this suit was brought, by direct provision in the Act of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. c. 228, p. 834, § 2), as follows:
But it is said that the Secretary directed the release of the relator from active service and refused him a retiring board because he was of opinion that under the Act of July 1, 1918, and before the Act of June 4, 1920, Reserve Force officers were not entitled to be retired on pay, but that they must apply for the relief extended to persons disabled in the service by sections 300 and 302 of the War Risk Insurance Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. cc. 105, 398, 405, 406, § 2 [Comp. St. 1918, §§ 514qqq, 514r]). Because the Secretary gave a wrong reason for his action is not a ground for requiring him by mandamus to revoke the order putting the relator on inactive duty, if he had discretion to do this, as we have found he did have.