United States v. Sweet

Background

Sweet, a second lieutenant who had been mustered into service in Minnesota and lived in Minneapolis, resigned and was honorably discharged at Camp Meade, Pennsylvania on October 15, 1898. He was not given transportation or subsistence and paid his travel home. He sued under a statute that allows travel pay and commutation of subsistence when an officer is "discharged from the service, except by way of punishment for an offence." A separate enlisted man raised a similar claim under a related statute.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the statute clearly required payment when an officer or soldier leaves by their own choice. The opinion noted a long, consistent practice of the War Department and Treasury to deny such payments for voluntary resignations. The Court explained that the ordinary meaning of “discharge” and the long administrative construction support denying allowances in cases of voluntary leave. Because the departments charged with executing the law have interpreted it consistently over many years, the Court would not overturn that practice and reversed the lower court judgments.

Real world impact

The decision means officers and enlisted men who leave by their own request generally cannot collect travel pay or subsistence commutation for travel they pay themselves. The ruling follows established departmental practice and rejects the lower court’s award to the servicemembers in these cases. It affirms administrative control over payment decisions in similar future claims.