BNUMBER:  B-277033 
DATE:  June 27, 1997
TITLE: [Letter], B-277033, June 27, 1997
**********************************************************************

B-277033

June 27, 1997

Lieutenant Colonel Gregory C. Dempsey
Chief, Resource Management Division
Headquarters, U. S. Army Medical Department Activity
Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121-5520

Dear Colonel Dempsey:

This is in reply to your May 6, 1997, memorandum (MCXM-RMB-B (37)) to 
the Comptroller General of the United States requesting a ruling 
whether appropriated funds may be used to pay for military physicians' 
state licenses and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
certifications.[1]

You state that due to a decrease in manpower and funding, the Medical 
Department Activity Commander at Fort Knox wishes to utilize an 
external partnership with a local community hospital.  You explain 
that the Commander considers entering into such a partnership 
essential to maintain the military physicians' surgical skills, and it 
would permit patient care and follow-up to eligible beneficiary groups 
that would otherwise be referred to a private physician.   

You state that to enter into this partnership would require the 
military physicians to obtain Kentucky state licensure and DEA 
certification at a cost of $250 and $210,  respectively.  The 
Commander would like to use appropriated funds to pay these costs 
since it appears to be in the best interest of the Fort Knox Medical 
Activity 

and the eligible beneficiaries of the medical care.  You also state 
that the Commander plans to institute necessary internal controls to 
insure that the physicians whose fees are paid from appropriated funds 
for the purpose of the partnership will not be permitted to use the 
licensure and certification for personal gain.

We have long held that it is the duty of an officer or employee of the 
government to qualify himself for the performance of his official 
duties, and therefore, generally, individuals must bear the cost of 
obtaining professional licenses and certifications as a personal 
expense.  22 Comp. Gen. 460 (1922); 46 Comp. Gen. 695 (1967); 61 Comp. 
Gen. 357 (1982); B-210522, Dec. 15, 1983; and B-260771, Oct. 11, 1995.  
We did make an exception to this rule and allow reimbursement to 
military members for the cost of a license or certification necessary 
to perform environmentally sensitive tasks, such as pesticide 
application or asbestos removal, where Federal law expressly requires 
the agency to comply with applicable state and local environmental 
requirements.  73 Comp. Gen. 171 (1994).  However, that decision 
specifically noted that appropriated funds are not available to cover 
licensing requirements of professional personnel such as teachers, 
accountants, engineers, lawyers, doctors, and nurses. 

In accordance with these principles, we have held that without 
specific statutory authority, appropriated funds are not available to 
pay the costs of additional licensing or certification requirements 
placed on a professional officer or employee to perform his or her 
official duties.  See, for example, 46 Comp. Gen. 695 (1967), 
concerning state license fees imposed on Public Health Service medical 
doctors detailed to state or local health agencies; 47 Comp. Gen. 116 
(1967), concerning fees imposed on government attorneys for admission 
to practice before a particular United States Court of Appeals in 
representing the government; and 49 Comp. Gen. 450 (1970), concerning 
a state medical licensure fee paid by an Air Force doctor who, as part 
of his Air Force residency training, was assigned to a university 
hospital in Louisiana where he was not licensed.  

In the case involving the Air Force officer, 49 Comp. Gen. 450, cited 
above, we also  noted that the Louisiana constitutional provision 
requiring the license for which the officer was assessed the fee, 
specifically exempted commissioned physicians and surgeons of the 
Army, Navy and Public Health Service, practicing in the discharge of 
their official duties.  We stated that this provision was consistent 
with the principle set forth in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Johnson 
v. Maryland,          254 U.S. 51 (1920), that instruments of the 
United States are immune from state control in the performance of 
their federal duties.  Thus, we stated that if it could be considered 
that doctors assigned to the university hospital under the Air Force 
residency program were performing their official duties as active duty 
military officers, it would appear that they were exempt from the 
state licensure requirements.  See also 47 Comp. Gen. 577 (1968).  

We note that the Kentucky statute requiring physicians to be licensed 
and the federal regulations requiring DEA certification to administer 
controlled substances, both exempt commissioned medical officers of 
the Armed Forces engaged in their official duties.  See Ky. Rev. Stat. 
Ann.  sec.  311.560 (Baldwin 1991); and 21 C.F.R.  sec.  1301.25.  Thus, if the 
military physicians in the situation you present are considered to be 
performing their official military duties under the proposed 
partnership, it would appear that they would be exempt from the 
licensure and certification requirements for which the fees are 
charged, similar to the situation noted in 49 Comp. Gen. 450, supra.  

In any event, based on the limited facts you have furnished, under the 
precedents cited above, without statutory authority, there appears no 
basis to use appropriated funds to pay the fees in question.

Sincerely yours,

Gary L. Kepplinger
Associate General Counsel
B-277033

June 27, 1997

DIGEST

Commander of Army Medical Activity at Fort Knox wishes to engage in a 
partnership with a local community hospital that he states would 
assist in maintaining military physicians' skills and provide 
additional care to authorized beneficiaries.  His proposal to use 
appropriated funds to pay the military physicians' fees for Kentucky 
medical licenses and DEA certification, which the Commander says would 
be required under the partnership, would be contrary to the 
long-standing rule that in the absence of statutory authority 
therefor, appropriated funds may not be used to pay the costs of 
professional licenses or certifications for federal officers or 
employees, which are considered personal expenses.  In addition, 
Kentucky statute and federal regulations exempt military physicians 
performing their official duties from licensure and certification 
requirements; therefore, it is not clear why the military physicians 
in question would be assessed the fees. 

1. Accountable officers and heads of agencies are entitled to request 
a decision of the Comptroller General on a question involving a 
request for payment from appropriated funds for which they are 
responsible.  31 U.S.C  sec.  3529.  Since we are uncertain as to whether 
you are an accountable officer, we are not issuing a Comptroller 
General's decision on your request at this time.  However, we are 
providing information for your assistance.