South Dakota's 1963 law paid a state quarters allowance to National Guard enlisted members with dependents during the 'annual active duty training period' if they weren't getting the federal allowance. Could a guardsman get multiple payments in a year? Did the payment cover service schools, basic training, or advance/rear detachment service? Or only summer camp?
Plain-English summary
Chapter 244 of South Dakota's 1963 Laws addressed a quirk in National Guard pay. Federal pay rules gave enlisted Reserve component members a Basic Allowance for Quarters when they were on active duty for training (for example, the annual two-week summer camp). But the federal allowance only applied to certain pay grades and certain durations. South Dakota's 1963 statute filled the gap by paying its own state quarters allowance to enlisted members of the lower four pay grades with dependents, when they were on the "annual active duty training period" and not receiving the federal allowance.
The questions: did "annual active duty training period" cover everything an enlistee did during the year, or just summer camp? Could a guardsman receive the payment more than once in a year? What about service schools, basic training (a six-month commitment), or short tours of extended active duty?
The AG worked through the federal and state regulations to define the term. Army Regulation 320-5 defined "Annual Active Duty for Training" for the joint services as a period "of not to exceed 17 days, which is performed on an annual basis by many members of the Ready Reserve." National Guard Regulation NGR 45 required units to participate in at least fifteen days of field training annually. The AG concluded that "the annual active duty training period" in the 1963 statute meant the same thing as the federal "Annual Active Duty for Training" or what was commonly called Summer Camp, Summer Field Training, or ANACDUTRA. It did not cover every tour of active duty a guardsman might perform.
That answered the three specific questions:
-
Multiple payments per year? No, generally. The statute contemplated one annual training period, and one payment. The AG did flag a narrow exception: if the calendar timing put two distinct annual training periods in different calendar years (an August one year and a June the next), each was its own "annual training period" and each could trigger a payment.
-
Service schools, basic training, short extended-duty tours? No. The AG drew a distinction between the broad federal pay concept and the narrower South Dakota statutory term. Voluntary periods of school training and other service did not qualify unless they were similar to and in lieu of the normal annual training period.
-
Advance and rear detachments? No. Although NG Bureau Pamphlet 45-4 treated travel and advance detachments as part of the broader training period concept, the AG excluded them from the state quarters allowance. Only the core annual training period (with travel time included) counted.
The AG distinguished a 1951 New Jersey case, Lynch v. Edgewater, that had interpreted "field training" broadly. The South Dakota statute used the narrower phrase "annual active duty training period," which the AG read to mean a single specific period of fifteen days or more of organized unit training per calendar year.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1966. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. National Guard pay structures, federal Basic Allowance for Housing (replacing BAQ), and South Dakota's National Guard supplemental pay statutes have all evolved substantially since 1966. Anyone administering state National Guard pay today should rely on current SDCL provisions and current Department of Defense pay regulations.
What the opinion meant at the time
For South Dakota National Guard pay administrators, the opinion provided a clear, narrow definition of when the state quarters allowance could be paid. It limited duplicative claims (a guardsman who did basic training plus summer camp could not double up) and it kept the state's general fund exposure manageable.
For the Adjutant General's office, the opinion confirmed the state had not opened a broad supplemental pay program. The 1963 statute filled a discrete gap in federal allowances during the annual training period only, and the AG read it tightly to that purpose.
For National Guard enlisted members and their families, the opinion narrowed what they could expect. A guardsman attending a service school for two weeks during the calendar year, or assigned to an advance detail to set up a training site before the main body arrived, would not be paid the state quarters allowance for that service.
For state auditors reviewing state-paid Guard claims, the opinion supplied an interpretive framework. Claims for periods other than the formal annual training (summer camp, ANACDUTRA) could be denied as outside the statute's reach.
Background and statutory framework
The 1963 statute reflected the post-Korean War, Cold War era of National Guard service. Most enlisted Guard members held civilian jobs and trained on weekend drills plus a two-week summer camp. The federal pay system gave certain officer ranks and certain durations a Basic Allowance for Quarters during active duty for training; lower-pay-grade enlisted members often did not qualify. The South Dakota legislature stepped in for those enlisted members with dependents who would otherwise be left without housing pay during their two weeks away from home.
The interpretive question was whether the state benefit traveled with the guardsman to every form of active duty for training, or only to the formal annual summer training event. AG Farrar (named at the end of the opinion as the originating AG, though the opinion itself is unsigned in the version retrieved) concluded the narrower reading was correct, based on Army Regulation 320-5 and NG Regulation NGR 45's specific definitions tying "Annual Active Duty for Training" to the summer field training event.
The exception for two annual periods in different calendar years reflects the practical reality of unit scheduling. If a unit went to summer camp in August one year and the unit's next summer camp fell in June of the following year, both events were in different calendar years and (under the AG's reading) each was the "annual training period" for that year. So each could trigger a separate state quarters allowance.
Citations
- Chapter 244, Laws of 1963 (South Dakota)
- Army Regulation 320-5, Change 2 (February 21, 1966), definition of Annual Active Duty for Training
- National Guard Regulation NGR 45, § 22 (fifteen days field training annually)
- National Guard Bureau Pamphlet 45-4, § 8
- South Dakota National Guard Regulation 45-7, ¶ 6 (advance detachment definition)
- Title 32 U.S.C. § 503 (authority for various National Guard duty)
- Lynch v. Edgewater, 14 N.J. Super. 329, 82 A.2d 446 (1951); 22 ALR 2d 1141
Source
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription. Author signature was not preserved in the retrieved version; the opinion's substance and reasoning follow the AG of South Dakota in 1966.
Statutes. Chapter 244, Laws of 1963.
You have raised certain questions concerning the applicability of Chapter 244, Laws of 1963. This Chapter provides for a quarters allowance for members of the National Guard with dependents, who are not eligible to receive the Federal Basic Allowance for quarters during the annual active duty training period. Concerning this statute you have asked the following questions:
"1. May more than one such payment be made to an individual during the year?
"2. May this payment be paid for full time training duty other than summer field training, such as service schools, basic training, (6 months) and other short period of extended active duty?
"3. May persons on advance or rear detachments receive this quarters allowance?"
Section 1 of the Act reads as follows:
"Enlisted men of the lower four (4) pay grades with dependents who are on active duty during the annual active duty training period, and not receiving Federal Basic Allowance for quarters, shall be paid a sum equal to the Federal Basic Allowance for quarters as provided by the Statutes of the United States for Reserve Enlisted Men."
The portion of this Chapter necessary of definition therefore is the phrase "the annual active duty training period". This is defined for the joint services including the United States Army in Army Regulation 320-5, Change 2, dated February 21, 1966, in part as follows:
"Annual Active Duty for Training (J, A) That period of active duty for training, of not to exceed 17 days, which is performed on an annual basis by many members of the Ready Reserve of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces..."
This particular section relates more particularly to members of the Army Reserve but the definition seems applicable to the question at hand. The regulations of the National Guard NGR 45, Section 22, provides that all federal recognized units and personnel will participate in at least fifteen days field training annually.
Also National Guard Bureau Pamphlet 45-4, Section 8 speaks of the training period as normally fifteen days with additional time for travel, advance detachments, etc.
South Dakota National Guard Regulation 45-7, paragraph 6 refers to the "advance detachment" as a "group of individuals of a given command designated to arrive at a training site prior to the main body".
It seems clear, therefore, that Chapter 244 contemplates that which is generally known and referred to as Summer Camp, Summer Field Training, ANACDUTRA, and the like. It does not encompass every tour of active duty or period of the same which a member of the National Guard may be called on to perform. (Title 32, USCA Section 503, for authority for the performance of various types of assignments by members of the National Guard).
In 1951 a New Jersey Court was called on to interpret the term "Field Training" in a statute which provided certain members of the Reserve Components were entitled to special pay allowance while on field training. In the Case of Lynch v. Edgewater (1951) 14 N.J. Super 329, 82 A2d 446 the court stated generally: "The term in the field as employed in the Articles of War had been defined by the War Department to mean service in mobilization, concentration, instruction, or maneuver camps, as well as service in campaign, simulated campaign, or on the march and it held the purpose of the plaintiff's temporary active duty was, therefore, undeniably to engage in 'field training'. The defendant employer had contended the term meant the fifteen day maximum period for which a reservist could be called to serve in any one year." (22 ALR 2d 1141) In my opinion there is a distinction to be taken between the cited case and the matter and law at hand. There the definition was given of "field training" a broad term; here we must resolve what is meant by the words "the annual active duty training period". In my opinion this phrase refers only to that period of time in any year, members of organized units of the National Guard are ordered to perform not less than fifteen days training. I would include travel time in such definition, but would exclude the time allocated for advance and rear detachments and voluntary periods of school training or other service except when similar to, and in lieu of, the normal annual training period. I feel the legislative intent is, that there is only one such period which can be called "the annual active duty training period." Consequently one person would not be entitled to more than one payment in any year of training. It is possible, as I understand it, however, for there to be more than one annual training period for the state's guard units in a fiscal year. This could come about and has, in fact, done so when units have gone to camp in August of one year and in June of the succeeding year. In this case I believe the enlisted persons within the class to be benefited should receive their allowances since the training is in different calendar years.
Your remaining two questions are answered in the negative as discussed above.