UNIT, WELFARE AND SIMILAR FUNDS § 5. Particular Funds. § 9. Acquisition of Funds. § 13. Custody and Deposit of; Responsibility. § 17. Expenditures and Use. § 5.63. Hospital funds. § 5. Particular Funds Use of money deposited in a Patients' Trust Fund to the credit of a mental incompetent for purchase of comfort items, see JAGA 1954/5516, PAY § 7.41. § 9. Acquisition of Funds § 9.15. Gifts or donations. A former patient in an Army hospital proposed to establish a trust fund to pay the expenses of needy persons which might arise by treatment of cancerous diseases at such hospital. The trust was to be administered by a private trustee. Held: The proposed trust does not constitute a contribution or gift "to or for the use of the United States" within the meaning of the Act of 11 March 1948 (62 Stat 71; 5 USC 150q-t), nor a contribution or donation within the purview of AR 40-650. It is apparent that the only gifts contemplated by the proposed trust would be to the beneficiaries thereof and not to the United States. (Citing JAGA 1950/7293, 26 Dec 1950; JAGA 1951/3316, 17 May 1951.) JAGA 1954/5720. 6 July 1954. § 13. Custody and Deposit of; Responsibility § 13.61. Investigation of losses of funds. By virtue of par 20, SR 210-50-4/AFR 176-8, 4 Nov 1953, the major commander having jurisdiction over the installation involved is the final authority for the review of an investigation of loss of nonappropriated funds regardless of the particular service to which the individual concerned belongs. JAGA 1954/4185. 13 May 1954. § 17.11. Insurance. § 17. Expenditures and Use It is legally unobjectionable for an open mess to insure against loss or damage by fire or other causes its interest in buildings occupied by it. If the open mess insures its interest in a government owned building, the insurance proceeds are not required to be covered into the United States Treasury. The government would have no beneficial interest in the proceeds other than the Department of the Army's interest therein as a nonappropriated fund. Whether a nonappropriated fund had insured its interest therein would not affect the provisions of AR 735-150, 2 December 1953, and par 20, SR 735-7-3, 17 June 1953 and survey procedures or similar action would be required in case of the loss of a building which is owned by the Government. Whether a mess has an insurable interest in a government owned building depends upon the facts and the law of the state or other jurisdiction in which the building is located. However, where such insurable interest exists, the recovery for loss sustained by the fund would be limited to the value of its right of occupancy which would be difficult to determine. If insurance is carried the insurance carrier should be notified of the circumstances as to ownership and occupancy of the building and the insurance should cover only the insurable interest of the open mess. (Citing SPJGA 1945/1690, 26 Feb 1945; JAGA 1953/3122, 21 Apr 1953.) JAGA 1954/6392. 5 August 1954. Special service funds may be used to purchase liability insurance to cover the recreation activities operated by the special services department at a naval air station and such insurance should be purchased wherever good business practice would indicate the need for such insurance, were the various activities of the special services department operated by a private individual or organization. An exception to this view is any situation where the functions of a pertinent activity are performed exclusively by naval personnel officially assigned to such duty. Op JAGN 1954/228. 25 June 1954. It would be a reasonable precaution to require a civilian athletic association of a naval activity to carry personal injury and property damage liability insurance. Where athletic events are held on government property there is a potential liability of the Department of the Navy both for defects in equipment or grounds and for the negligence of employees of the United States when acting within the scope of their employment. It is also possible that there would arise an independent liability of the athletic association. Op JAGN 1954/248. 1 September 1954. § 17.35. Employment of military personnel on off duty basis. Nonappropriated funds may be used to compensate enlisted personnel for work performed under certain circumstances with a nonappropriated fund activity even though such personnel have a primary full-time duty assignment with the same activity. The work for which compensation is paid must be work voluntarily performed beyond the scope of assigned duties and performed at times. not required for the performance of assigned duties. Hence, where an enlisted man whose primary duty assignment on a full-time duty basis is with an officer's open mess, upon completion of eight hours work of primary duty, voluntarily works an additional two or three hours daily and/or on Saturdays and Sundays upon approval of the mess custodian and board of governors, payment in accordance with the provisions of subpar 6c (2) of AR 210-50, 4 November 1953, would be proper. However, payment would be improper where the man, upon completion of eight hours work of primary duty, is required by competent authority to perform two or three hours additional duty daily and/or on Saturdays and Sundays. (Citing AR 210-50, pars 6c (2) and 6e (3); JAGA 1948/4020, 20 May 1948.) JAGA 1954/2074. 1 March 1954. The part-time employment by Navy messes or clubs, on a regular or permanent basis, of enlisted personnel earning $2500 or more a year military pay would not be in violation of the Dual Employment Act of 31 July 1894. (Citing 23 Comp Gen 900; 22 Comp Gen 312; 23 Comp Gen 275; JAGA 1953/3958, 12 May 1953. Modifying Op JAGN of 13 Jan 1950 (CMO 5-1950, 201, 203).) Op JAGN 1954/251. 23 September 1954. VESSELS II. NAVAL, COAST GUARD, AND MILITARY VESSELS. § 35. In General. § 39. Control and Regulation. § 41. Maintenance and Repair. VI. NAVIGATION AND OPERATION; COLLISION. § 195 Pilots and Pilotage. II. NAVAL, COAST GUARD, AND MILITARY VESSELS § 35. In General A certain revenue cutter was transfered to the Navy by EO of the President dated 24 March 1898 and operated under orders of the Secretary of the Navy until it was transferred to the U. S. Revenue Cutter Service, Treasury Department, on 17 August 1898. Held: Service on the revenue cutter during the period 24 March to 17 August 1898 is service in the armed forces of the United States. Although the former revenue cutter service was not considered to be a permanent branch of the armed forces of the United States, cutters of this service which were transferred to the Department of the Navy by Executive Order to cooperate with the Navy under orders of the Secretary of the Navy during a period of war, were considered during such period to be a part of the naval forces of the United States and as such would be considered as a part of the armed forces of the United States. Op CCCG 1954/25. 7 July 1954. § 39.1. Generally. § 39. Control and Regulation The senior line officer eligible for command at sea, embarked as a passenger or observer in a boat commanded by a petty officer, is responsible for the safety and management of the boat (Art 1331, Navy Regulations, 1948; Arts 108 and 109, Navy Regulations, 1920). However, an LCU (landing craft utility) is a ship and not a boat and therefore an officer embarked therein as an observer or passenger is not responsible for the safety and management thereof, under those Regulations. Held also: Where no officer is embarked in a boat the responsibility for the safety and management of the boat rests upon the coxswain and the officers who assigned him to his duties and it does not shift to the senior petty officer embarked in the boat. Op JAGN 1954/252. 6 October 1954. § 39.11. Commercial enterprises. A question arose as to whether the state government or the federal government has jurisdiction with respect to the activities of insurance agents soliciting insurance on board vessels of the Navy located in the territorial waters of a state but without waters in a naval or military reservation over which the United States has acquired political jurisdiction. Held: Although the federal government has the power and authority to conduct the proper perform ance of its business without interference from the individual states, the exercise of this power does not vest the territorial jurisdiction reserved to the states in the federal government. On the other hand, the granting of the admiralty jurisdiction to the federal judiciary proves the power of Congress to legislate with respect to such matters; not that Congress has exercised that power. Το date, Congress has not provided that the special Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction with respect to crimes generally shall extend to navigable waters within the territory of the individual states (cf. 18 USC §7). Therefore, neither the power of the federal government to properly conduct the performance of its business, nor the authority vested in the federal judiciary with respect to admiralty and maritime matters, the authority which has not to date been exercised by Congress insofar as the instant problem is concerned, would divest the state of its territorial jurisdiction in this matter. Op JAGN 1954/223. 29 June 1954. § 41. Maintenance and Repair § 41.5. Responsibilities of commanding officer, generally. A contract for the repair of a Coast Guard vessel which requires the contractor to exercise reasonable care to protect the vessel from fire and to prevent accidents to the vessel or persons thereon and requires the contractor to give his personal superintendence to the work or to have a competent foreman or superintendent on the site at all times, does not relieve the commanding officer of the vessel of his responsibility for the vessel, which responsibility is inherent in his official duty as commanding officer. The commanding officer, until relieved of his command or unless the vessel is placed out of commission, is under the duty to keep informed of the ship repairs, the manner of performance, and to insure that the security of the vessel is not endangered by methods employed by the contractor, and to advise the Commandant of any breach or failure in the contractor's duties and responsibilities. (Citing sec 7-2-13, U. S. Coast Guard Regulations.) Op CCCG 1954/20. 9 April 1954. VI. NAVIGATION AND OPERATION; COLLISION $195.15. Licenses. § 195. Pilots and Pilotage The commanding officer of a Naval Port Control Office would not be authorized to require civil service pilots in the competitive service as distinguished from the exempted service who operate in that port and handle naval ships, to possess a pilot's license issued by the U. S. Coast Guard. An activity can, however, enter into an agreement with the regional director of the Civil Service Commission in regard to such requirement. (Citing Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 US 187, 56 L ed 1047, 32 S Ct 626; Huus v. New York and Porto Rico Steamship Co., 182 US 392, 45 L ed 1146, 21 S Ct 827; par 0752, Navy Regulations, 1948; Navy Civilian Personnel Instruction 160.2-5.) Op JAGN 1954/219. 5 May 1954. |