Draper v. United States

121 Ct. Cl. 625, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 137, 1951 WL 5355
United States Court of Claims·Decided December 4, 1951·No. No. 48208·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Howell, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Dr. Warren F. Draper, sues to recover the difference between the retirement pay he received for the period from September 1,1947, to October 1,1949, based on the rank of Brigadier General, and the retirement pay he urges he should have received for that period based on the rank of Major General.

Dr. Draper became a commissioned officer in the United States Public Health Service in 1910. Pursuant to the Act of August 9, 1939 (53 Stat. 1266), he was appointed Assistant to the Surgeon General with a rank, pay, and allowances corresponding to that of a Brigadier General in the Army,, effective September 1, 1939.

On April 27, 1944, Dr. Draper was detailed to the U. S. Army with the rank of Brigadier General, retaining his posi[629] tion of Assistant to the Surgeon General. Pursuant to the Act of July 1, 1944 (58 Stat. 682, 684, §205 (a)), he was made Deputy Surgeon General.

On August 7,1944, while Dr. Draper was still detailed to the Army, he was promoted to the temporary rank of Major General, effective July 1, 1944. This action was taken pursuant to the Act of June 28,1944 (58 Stat. 547,560). Following this promotion and for the duration of plaintiff’s detail to the Army, he retained his position of Deputy Surgeon General.

On September 17, 1945, Dr. Draper’s Army detail was terminated, and he returned to active duty in the United States Public Health Service as Deputy Surgeon General, reverting to his old grade of Brigadier General.

On September 1,1947, Dr. Draper was retired from Public Health Service. Prior to his retirement, the Federal Security Administrator had asked the Comptroller General for a ruling as to whether Dr. Draper’s retirement pay should be based on the pay of a Major General or on the pay of a Brigadier General. The Federal Security Administrator called the Comptroller General’s attention to Section 211 (c) (2) of the Act of July 1,1944 (58 Stat. 682, 688), which provided that the retired pay of a commissioned officer who had served four years or more as Deputy Surgeon General should be based on the pay of the highest grade held by him as such Deputy Surgeon General. The Comptroller General, in a letter to the Federal Security Administrator dated March 11.1947, designated B-63834, ruled that Dr. Draper’s retirement pay should be based on the pay of a Brigadier General.

On October 1,1949, pursuant to the Act of August 12,1949 (63 Stat. 802, 829, § 511), which provided that members of the uniformed services, theretofore retired for reasons other than physical disability, should be entitled to receive retirement pay based on their highest federally recognized rank or grade, whether permanent or temporary, Dr. Draper’s retired pay was raised to the retired pay of a Major General.

It is plaintiff’s contention that for the period September 1.1947, to October 1,1949, he was entitled to have his retired pay based on the pay of a Major General. The defendant contends that plaintiff is not entitled to the amount sued for [630] because be did not serve as Deputy Surgeon General for four years as required by Section 211 (c) (2) of the Act of July 1,1944 (58 Stat. 682, 688). The defendant further contends that if the Court should find that Dr. Draper did serve as Deputy Surgeon General for four years or more, he is still not entitled to have his retired pay based on the pay of a Major General because his appointment as Major General while serving with the U. S. Army was a temporary appointment, and was not received by virtue of his holding the office of Deputy Surgeon General.

As noted above, plaintiff became Deputy Surgeon General on July 1,1944, and he held such title from that date to the date of his retirement on September 1, 1947, or for a period of threé years and two months. It is plaintiff’s contention that the Act of July 1,1944 (58 Stat. 682, 684), did no more than change the title of his office from that of “Assistant to the Surgeon General” to “Deputy Surgeon General,” and that he is, therefore, entitled to count his service as Assistant to the Surgeon General in meeting the four-year requirement of Section 211(c) (2) of the same Act for the purposes of retired pay.

The Act of August 9, 1939 (53 Stat. 1266), providing for the detail of a commissioned medical officer of the Public Health Service to serve as Assistant to the Surgeon General, provides as follows:

That there shall be in the Public Health Service a commissioned medical officer of the Health Service, who shall be known as the Assistant to the Surgeon General, and who shall perform such duties as the Surgeon General may prescribe and shall act as Surgeon General during the absence or disability of the Surgeon General or in the event that there is a vacancy in the office of the Surgeon General. The Assistant to the Surgeon General, while serving as such Assistant, shall have a rank in the Public Health Service which shall correspond to that held by a brigadier general in the United States Army, and shall be entitled to the same pay and allowances as a brigadier general in the Army.

The above Act was superseded by section 205 (a) of the Act of July 1, 1944 (58 Stat. 682, 684), which provided for a Deputy Surgeon General as follows.:.

[631] . ' Seg. 205. (a) The Surgeon General shall assign one commissioned officer from the Tegular Corps to adminr ister the Office of the Surgeon General, to act as Surgeon General during the absence or disability of the Surgeon General or in the event of a vacancy in that office, and to perform such other duties as the Surgeon General may Írescribe, and while so assigned he shall have the title of >eputy Surgeon General.

Section 205 further provided for the appointment of six commissioned officers who would have the title of Assistant Surgeons General and who would be chiefs of various bureaus in the U. S. Public Health Service.

The introductory statement in H. R. 1364 dealing with the Public Health Service Act of July 1,1944, contains the following language:

The bill for the most part is merely a restatement of the laws relating to the Public Health Service.
It proposes to bring together, in a compact and orderly arrangement, substantially all existing law on the subject except obsolete provisions; to repeal obsolete laws; to resolve certain ambiguities in existing law; and to make a number of revisions which operating experience has shown to be necessary or desirable.1

The Committee Report makes no mention of Section 205 (a) in that portion .of the Report dealing with additions to and changes in the existing law. Under “Explanation of the Bill by Titles and Sections” the Report contains the following explanation of Section 205 (a) :

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Draper v. United States, 121 Ct. Cl. 625, 1951 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 137, 1951 WL 5355 (cc 1951).

121 Ct. Cl. 625 (Draper v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Satterwhite v. United States
123 Ct. Cl. 342 (Court of Claims, 1952)