BULLETIN

No. 32.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, September 10, 1915.

The following digest of opinions of the Judge Advocate General of the Army for the month of August, 1915, and of certain decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, is published for the information of the service in general.

[2255370 H-A. G. O.]

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR:

H. L. SCOTT,

Major General, Chief of Staff.

OFFICIAL:

H. P. MCCAIN,

The Adjutant General.

COT 1 1915

OPINIONS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL.

A CORRECTION.

On page 5 of Bulletin No. 18, War Department, 1915, fine 11, change "Manual for the Pay Department" to read "Army Regulations."

COMMAND: Detail of staff officer as officer of the day.

The question was presented whether under existing regulations an officer serving a detail in the Quartermaster Corps may be required by his post commander to act as officer of the day. Paragraph 18, A. R., 1913, provides that a staff officer,

"though eligible to command, according to his rank, shall not assume command of troops unless put on duty under orders which specially so direct, by authority of the President."

Held, that service as officer of the day involves command of troops, and that the detail by a post commander of an officer of the Quartermaster Corps for that duty would be in violation of existing regulations.

(20-012.2, J. A. G., Aug. 16, 1915.)

DETACHED SERVICE: Officers on duty in command of guard.

Two officers with rank of first and second lieutenant, respectively, were ordered to duty from Fort Hamilton, N. Y., with a detachment composed of 51 enlisted men, 10 from each of their companies and 3 other companies at Fort Hamilton and 1 from the Hospital Corps, and the ques tion was presented whether the officers while on such duty should be regarded as on duty with their companies under the detached service law (37 Stat., 571).

Held, that since the officers were not detailed for the performance of company duties or sent in command of detachments from their companies, but for general duty with the detachment as a whole or as a single detachment from Fort Hamilton, which duty was not incident to nor flowed from their company relations, they could not properly be regarded as present for duty with their companies in the sense of the detached service law.

(6–124.22, J. A. G., Aug. 26, 1915.)

4

ENLISTMENT: Eligibility of applicant with record of commitment for truancy.

Paragraph 849, A. R., 1913, forbids the enlistment, among others, of persons "who have been imprisoned under sentence of a court in a reformatory, jail, or penitentiary."

Held, that this provision does not apply to commitments for truancy, and that therefore an applicant who "was committed for 422 days to the New York Parental School on account of truancy" was not ineligible for enlistment because of said commitment.

(34-081, J. A. G., Aug. 6, 1915.)

MAIL MATTER: As to registration and insurance.

In view of the ruling (Bul. 18, W. D., 1915, page 4) that there was no authority for furnishing stamps for parcel post insurance, the question was presented whether the registration of mail matter should be regarded as insurance and the issuing of stamps therefor governed by the said ruling.

Held, that the registration of mail matter is not for the purpose of providing ordinary indemnity insurance such as is contemplated in the case of insurance of parcel post packages, which are carried and treated as ordinary mail, but that the primary object of registration is to avail of the special or superior service designed to secure the safe delivery of the mail matter itself, the use of which service is well established in all branches of the Government, and that therefore postage might properly be furnished for the registration of mail matter when necessary in the Army service. (5-240, J. A. G., August 12, 1915.)

OFFICERS: Examinations for promotion.

A first lieutenant who failed in a mental examination for promotion to the grade of captain and was suspended from further examination for a year, according to law, graduated from the Coast Artillery School during the said year of suspension, receiving certificates of proficiency in all subjects. He desired to know whether he would be exempt from further examination in the subjects covered by such certificates, and also whether he would be required to take examination in the subjects in which he qualified on his previous examination.

Section 3 of the act of October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 562), provides, inter alia, that the President will prescribe a system of examination of all officers of the Army below the rank

5

of major to determine their fitness for promotion, and that an officer failing on a mental examination shall be suspended from promotion for one year and then be reexamined. The regulations applicable are contained in General Orders, No. 14, War Department, April 25, 1912, paragraph 28 of which exempts certain officers from examination "as to their professional fitness for promotion to the next higher grade under the conditions and with the limitations hereinafter set forth." Among those listed are graduates of the Coast Artillery School who are exempt for four years from the date of graduation "in all subjects which they have pursued satisfactorily at that school." Paragraph 34 of the order directs that "the procedure prescribed in this order for the examination of officers for promotion will be followed in the reexamination of officers suspended from promotion." Held, that upon reexamination the officer would be exempt from examination in the subjects covered by his Coast Artillery School diploma, subject to the limitations set forth in paragraph 28, G. O. No. 14, W. D., 1912, although he may have failed on such subjects in his former examination, but that he would not be exempt from examination on any subject by reason of having qualified therein on his previous examination.

(64-221.4, J. A. G., Aug. 30, 1915.)