The above statutes unequivocally require 20 years active service in order to qualify for retirement pay at age 60. Many cases decided by the courts uphold this requirement. See Price v. United States, 100 F. Supp. 310, 121 Ct.Cl. 664, (1951), 104 F. Supp. 99, 121 Ct.Cl. 681 (1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 911, 73 S.Ct. 333, 97 L.Ed. 703 (1953); Williams v. United States, 117 F. Supp. 189, 127 Ct.Cl. 167 (1953); Forester v. United States, 291 F.2d 397, 154 Ct.Cl. 270 (1961); Warthen v. United States, 157 Ct.Cl. 798 (1962); and Merrill v. United States, 338 F.2d 372, 168 Ct.Cl. 1 (1964). The plaintiff relies heavily upon Sullivan v. United States, 177 Ct.Cl. 518 (1966) to support his claim.
The field service of National Guard units pursuant to this act, plaintiff urges, is 'active service' within the meaning of the phrase 'or in other provisions of law' as used in section 511, supra. In addition, plaintiff relies on the decision by this court in Price v. United States, 104 F.Supp. 99, 100, 121 Ct.Cl. 664, where it was held that National Guard service performed under the Dick Act prior to 1916, was 'satisfactory Federal service' in the 'federally recognized' National Guard within the meaning of Title III of the Army and Air Force Vitalization and Retirement Equalization Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1081, 1087, 10 U.S.C. § 1036 et seq. Defendant, urging the inapplicability of the Price decision and relying on decisions by the Comptroller General, together with Alabama Great Southern R.R. Co. v. United States, 49 Ct.Cl. 522, asserts that the field training in question under the Dick Act does not constitute service in 'the Army of the United States' or in any 'regular or reserve component' thereof.
On January 25, 1950, plaintiff addressed to the adjutant general a formal application for retirement pay benefits under the 1948 act. While this application was denied, under the then current administrative interpretation as to the nonallowability of credit for service in the National Guard prior to 1916, plaintiff has been retired, subsequent to this court's decision in Price v. United States, 104 F.Supp. 99, 121 Ct.Cl. 664, and has been allowed back pay from February 1, 1950. The Comptroller General denied any further back pay on the basis of Special Regulations 135--260--1 of the Department of the Army.