Court Opinion

ID: 9447826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:45:25.991291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:12.354402
License: Public Domain

JONES, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is relieved from the dual compensation provisions of the Economy Act of 1932 which limits the amount of retired pay that a civilian employee of the United States should receive as a commissioned military officer. Section 212 (a) of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, 47 Stat. 382, 406, provides as follows:3
“(a) After the date of the enactment of this Act, no person holding a civilian office or position, appointive or elective, under the United States Government * * * shall be entitled, during the period of such incumbency, to retired pay from the United States for or on account of services as a commissioned officer in any of the services mentioned in the Pay Adjustment Act of 1922 [U.S.C., title 37], at a rate in excess of an amount which when combined with the annual rate of compensation from such civilian office or position, makes the total rate from both sources more than $3,000; and when the retired pay amounts to or exceeds the rate of $3,000 per annum such person shall be entitled to the pay of the civilian office or position or the retired pay, whichever he may elect.
“As used in this section, the term ‘retired pay’ shall be construed to include credits for all service that lawfully may enter into the computation thereof.”
Section 212(b) of the Economy Act,. 47 Stat. 382, 406, as amended in 1940, 54 Stat. 761, provides as follows:4
“(b) This section shall not apply to any person whose retired pay, plus civilian pay, amounts to less than $3,000: Provided, That this section shall not apply to regular or emergency commissioned officers retired for disability incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States or for disabilities resulting from an explosion of an instrumentality of war in line of duty * * 5 U.S.C.A. § 59a. [Emphasis supplied.]
The plaintiff was retired for physical' disability pursuant to the Act of 1939, supra. The first question for decision is whether the Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 238, 239, relieves the plaintiff of the effect of the dual compensation provisions of the Economy Act by right of his status as a Reserve officer. The plaintiff con*480tends that as a reservist he is exempted from the Economy Act on the basis of our opinion in Tanner v. United States, 1954, 125 F.Supp. 240, 129 Ct.Cl. 792, certiorari denied 1955, 350 U.S. 842, 76 S.Ct. 83, 100 L.Ed. 751. The plaintiff in Tanner was retired for longevity as a Reserve officer and entitled to retired pay pursuant to Title III of the Act of June 29, 1948, 62 Stat. 1087. The issue was whether the plaintiff’s civilian employment would preclude him from receiving retired pay for the period of that employment because of the Economy Act. This court stated the issue in Tanner as follows at page 242 of 125 F.Supp., at page 795 of 129 Ct.Cl.:
“The 1947' statute is expressed that ‘No existing law shall be construed to prevent’ the receipt of the pay and allowances therein referred to. Our problem is to determine whether the expression ‘pay and allowances’ includes the retired pay authorized by the 1948 Act.”
The 1947 statute of which this court spoke in Tanner is the Act of July 1,1947, 61 Stat. 238, 239, 10 U.S.C. § 371b, which provides:
“No existing law shall be construed to prevent any member of the Officers’ Reserve Corps or the Enlisted Reserve Corps from accepting employment in any civil branch of the public service nor from receiving the pay incident to such employment in addition to any pay and allowances to which he may be entitled under the laws relating to the Officers’ Reserve Corps and Enlisted Reserve Corps, nor as prohibiting him from practicing his civilian profession or occupation before or in connection with any department of the Federal Government.”
In Tanner this court held that “pay and allowances” under the 1947 Act included retired pay for longevity to Reserve officers under the Act of 1948.
The extension of the phrase “pay and allowances” sought by the plaintiffs to cover the class of military men retired for physical disability has caused this court to inquire once again into the meaning of the phrase “pay and allowances.” I begin therefore with an examination of the legislative history of the 1947 Act. The Act of July 1, 1947, 61 Stat. 238, was an amendment to an earlier act, Act of May 12, 1917, 40 Stat. 40. That Act provides on page 72:
“Provided, further, That members of the Officers’ Reserve Corps who are in the employ of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia and who are ordered to duty by proper authority shall, when relieved from duty, be restored to the positions held by them when ordered to duty.”
The purpose of the 1917 Act was to require that members of the Officers’ Reserve Corps who were in the employ of the United States Government or the District of Columbia be restored to their civilian positions when they were relieved from active duty with the Army. The Act of July 1, 1947, 61 Stat. 238, amended the 1917 Act by inserting in the same above-quoted paragraph of the 1917 Act the words “or the Enlisted Reserve Corps,” after the words “Officers’ Reserve Corps.” Section 1(b) of the Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 238, 239, further amended the 1917 Act by granting to reservists who were Federal employees still another benefit with regard to their annual active duty training period. The Act of 1947 granted them civilian pay for training periods. That this was the objective of the provision of the Act of 1947 here in issue, § 1(b) of the Act of 1947,5 is made clear by the Report of the House Committee on Armed Services on the Act of July 1, 1947, H.R.Rep.No.483, U.S.Code Cong.Serv., 80th Cong., 1st Sess. p. 1265 (1947), which provides:
“The purpose of the bill is to grant members of the Enlisted Reserve Corps who are employees of a Federal agency the same annual leave rights, with pay, for training *481purposes, as are now enjoyed, by the officers of the Reserve Corps of the Army and officers and enlisted men of the Naval Reserve.” [Emphasis supplied.]
When in the light of the legislative history of the Act of 1947, our decision in Tanner is reflected upon, it appears in retrospect that our interpretation of the phrase “pay and allowances” may have been too broad. In Tanner we expressed some misgiving with regard to the result ultimately reached therein. We observed in Tanner, 125 F.Supp. at page 243, 129 Ct.Cl. at page 798:
“It will be remembered that at the time of its enactment in 1947 there was, generally speaking, no retired pay for Reserve Army officers for age or length of service. When Title III of the Act of June 29, 1948, supra, which gave retired pay to Reserve officers of the Army for length of service was under discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Johnson, Chairman of a Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, in explanation of the bill, stated categorically that the Economy Act of 1932 would be applicable to retired pay received pursuant to the bill. 94 Cong.Rec. pp. 2481-2483.”
Our original misgivings in Tanner, however, were not focused on the problem as it now presents itself: does the legislative history of the phrase “pay and allowances” in the Act of 1947 reveal a clear and limited meaning, i. e., compensation by the Government of Federal employees called to active duty training for short periods ? In view of the discussion of the legislative history of the Act •of 1947 above, the answer to this question appears to be in the affirmative.
We are therefore met with the problem •of what the status of the Tanner case now is. It should first be noted that though Tanner was decided in 1954 the ■Congress has not changed the result reached therein. Further, because of the retired reservists who have relied on our opinion in Tanner, and who are now being paid in accordance with it, I think due deference to the doctrine of stare decisis should persuade us, in the absence of specific legislative directive, not to disturb that decision. Since the rights of these reservists have been judicially determined, their entitlement to continued retirement pay for longevity should not be disturbed. My decision to abide with Tanner of course can in no way, in the light of what has been said above, justify further latitude in interpreting and extending the phrase “pay and allowances” to cover disability retired pay.
I have, until this point, spoken of plaintiff as if his status were that of a reservist. The writer of the majority opinion, however, points out that under the facts of this case the plaintiff’s commission in the Officers’ Reserve Corps is irrelevant. The plaintiff was not retired for physical disability as a Reserve officer but rather pursuant to his status as an Army of the United States officer. However, the majority reasons that plaintiff’s status as an Army of the United States officer confers upon him the same rights and privileges which he would have had as a reservist. In support of this proposition, the Joint Resolution of September 22, 1941, 55 Stat. 728, 729, is relied upon as follows:
“Provided further, That any person appointed as an officer in the Army of the United States under the provisions of this Act shall receive the same pay and allowances and be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and benefits as members of the Officers’ Reserve Corps of the same grade and length of active service * * [Emphasis supplied.]
That the 1941 Resolution was intended to give Army of the United States officers the same rights and privileges as Reserve officers, I have no doubt. I agree further that the repealing statute, 61 Stat. 451 (1947), effective July 1, 1948, could not divest an Army of the United States officer such as the plaintiff of any benefit conferred as a result of the 1941 Resolution. But what is to me decisive is that the 1941 Resolution certainly can*482not be read to place an Army of the United States officer in a better position than a reservist. If Army of the United States officers are to be granted the same rights and benefits as Reserve officers, then it is of course crucial to determine the rights of reservists. In the discussion above, I have pointed out that Tanner permitted reservists exemption when they were retired for longevity. But Tanner went no further than that. There is no authority in our decisions for allowing an exemption to reservists retired for physical disability.6 Plaintiff therefore cannot predicate his right to exemption on the ground that if he were to be put in the same position as a reservist, he would be immunized from the restrictions of the Economy Act.
If, therefore, the plaintiff is to be exempted at all from the Economy Act, it must be by right of his status as an Army of the United States officer. This brings me to the second issue in this case: whether an Army of the United States officer retired for physical disability pursuant to the Act of 1939 is exempted from the Economy Act. On this question, this court has spoken. In Leonard v. United States, 1956, 145 F.Supp. 758, 136 Ct.Cl. 686, an Army of the United States officer discharged for disability under the Act of 1939, sought exemption from the Economy Act. In Leonard we held that the plaintiff came squarely within the prohibition of the Economy Act. We said simply that the Economy Act had not been repealed and that the plaintiff in Leonard was precluded from receiving his retirement pay for the period he served as a Federal civilian employee.
Again in Palmer v. United States, No. 356-58, decided January 20, 1960, this court was confronted with the claim of an Army -of the United States officer that he was entitled to exemption from the Economy Act. In a per curiam opinion this court rejected the claim and said that on the basis of our opinion in Leonard the plaintiff could not recover. Judge Madden concurred in a separate opinion in Palmer. He said that to permit an Army of the United States officer to receive the same retired physical disability pay as an officer of the Regular Army would grant the Army of the United States officers “a valuable additional privilege, exemption from the Economy Act, which is denied to Regular Army officers. I do not think that the Congress intended such a result, and I would interpret the statute accordingly. I therefore concur in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s petition.” 7
It is true that certain classes of regulars whose physical disability was incurred in service to the Nation in combat or in connection with waging war against the Nation’s enemies are specifically exempted from the Economy Act. See § 212(b) of the Economy Act of 1932, 47 Stat. 382, 406, as amended in 1940, 54 Stat. 761, which is set out on page 479 of this opinion. Section 212(b) was further amended to enlarge the class of regulars granted exemption in 68 Stat. 18 (1954). What is of course crucially significant about these specific exemptions that the Congress made in regard to regulars retired for physical disability is that all regulars are not granted such exemption. Further, no exemption for disability retired pay in haec verba has ever been made by the Congress for Army of the United States officers or Reserve officers. What the plaintiff asks here then is for us by judicial decision to grant a broader exemption to Army of the United States officers and Reserve officers than the Congress has seen fit to grant to regulars in specific legislation.
It is evident from the majority opinion in the instant case that it does not *483now depart from the sound reasoning set forth in the concurring opinion in Palmer. However, the majority opinion suggests that at this juncture confusion and unfairness will result if Palmer and Leonard are not overturned. The reason for this is that as of June 11, 1957, the Comptroller General has been allowing Reserve officers, retired for disability, exemption from the Economy Act under the purported authority of the decision of the Federal District Court in United States v. Toma, D.C.S.D.Cal.1957, 148 F. Supp. 489, and by reason of the stipulated judgment in Madden v. United States, 1957,8 138 Ct.Cl. 873. As was pointed out in the majority opinion, the Economy Act question was not even raised by the Government in Toma.
The fact that the Comptroller General chose to follow the Federal District Court in Toma should not cause us now to call into question the essential soundness of Leonard and Palmer. When the Comptroller General is in error as to the law (which is a somewhat natural error in view of the confused state of the decisions), it is hardly our duty to change the law, but rather we should call upon him to change his practices so as to conform with the law.
The gravamen of this dissent is that the plaintiff has no legal basis for exemption from the Economy Act of 1932 such as would entitle him to retired pay for physical diability either as a reservist or as an Army of the United States officer.
The majority opinion adds further to any confusion that may exist by rankly discriminating against Regular Army officers. I have always believed that neither Reserve nor Regular officers should be discriminated against but should receive equal treatment. This is the purport and meaning of the various statutes enacted by the Congress when they are read together, as they must be. The action taken today will give to Reserve officers an exemption that is in terms denied all Regular Army officers who were retired for disability, except the ones who were disabled in actual combat, or by an explosion of an instrument of war in line of duty.9
I would grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and deny the plaintiff’s similar motion.

. The exemption of § 212 relating to Regular Army officers was somewhat broadened by public law, approved February 20, 1954, 68 Stat. 18.

. The $3,000 limitation was raised to $10,-000 on August 4, 1955, amended by § 2 of Public Law 239, 69 Stab 498.

. The text of this provision is set out on page 480 of this opinion.

. It is true that in Madden v. United States, 1957, 138 Ct.Cl. 873, this court granted a judgment to a reservist retired for disability exempting him from the Economy Act. That case was controlled by Tanner on the stipulation of the parties. No briefs were filed nor was any opinion rendered by this court.

. Palmer v. United States, No. 356-58, decided January 20, 1960, slip opinion, pp. 3-4.

. See footnote 6.

. Section 212(b) of the Economy Act, 54 Stat. 761.