United States v. Mills

Background

The dispute involved an Army officer who had served as a major and later as a lieutenant-colonel. Under Revised Statutes §1261 he had a base yearly pay for each grade, and under §1262 he received additional ten-percent longevity pay for each five years of service (capped by §1263). The officer asked that a further ten percent increase from acts of 1900 and 1901 be computed on his total pay including longevity pay; the Government argued the percentage should be computed only on the minimum grade pay.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the phrase “pay proper” in the 1900 and 1901 acts included the longevity increases authorized by §1262. Relying on the Court’s prior treatment of “current yearly pay” in United States v. Tyler, the Court concluded that the terms should be read similarly and that “pay proper” covers the aggregate of base pay plus longevity pay. The opinion rejected the Government’s distinction between the phrases and noted changes in appropriation language over time; it affirmed the Court of Claims’ method of computing the percentage on the total pay provided by the two statutes.

Real world impact

The decision means the ten percent additions in the cited acts are calculated on an officer’s full statutory pay, including length-of-service increases, raising the total amounts payable to long-serving officers. The judgment of the Court of Claims was affirmed. The opinion also notes that Congress later provided different treatment for retired officers.