B-126123, APR. 25, 1961
Highlights
RETIRED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 18. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 4. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED IN DECISIONS TO YOU. A SIMILAR CLAIM WAS FILED BY YOU ON MAY 4. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT ON MAY 13. "IT IS ORDERED THIS THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY. THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE AND THE SAME IS DENIED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE AND THE SAME IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFF'S PETITION IS DISMISSED.'. SINCE THAT ORDER FULLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND NO FURTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN IN THAT CASE. YOUR CLAIM WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 4.
B-126123, APR. 25, 1961
TO MAJOR IRVING E. PUGH, USA, RETIRED:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 18, 1961, WITH ENCLOSURE, IN EFFECT REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THIS OFFICE IN DENYING YOUR CLAIM FOR INCREASED RETIRED PAY BELIEVED DUE YOU EFFECTIVE FROM OCTOBER 1, 1949, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 802-841, AND THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 15 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, 37 U.S.C. 115. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 4, 1955, AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED IN DECISIONS TO YOU, B-126123, DATED MARCH 27, 1956, MAY 14, 1958, AND OCTOBER 23, 1958.
A SIMILAR CLAIM WAS FILED BY YOU ON MAY 4, 1959, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS (IRVING E. PUGH V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 201 59). THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR PETITION WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT ON MAY 13, 1960, IN AN ORDER READING AS FOLLOWS:
"ORDER
"THIS CASE COMES BEFORE THE COURT ON THE PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. UPON CONSIDERATION THEREOF, TOGETHER WITH A STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL AND A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF, AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION IN PALMER V. UNITED STATES, 139 CT.CL. 376,
"IT IS ORDERED THIS THIRTEENTH DAY OF MAY, 1960, THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE AND THE SAME IS DENIED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE AND THE SAME IS GRANTED, AND PLAINTIFF'S PETITION IS DISMISSED.'
SINCE THAT ORDER FULLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND NO FURTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN IN THAT CASE, IT CONSTITUTED A FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST YOU ON THOSE ISSUES. SECTION 2519, TITLE 28, U.S.C. (1958 ED.), PROVIDES THAT "A FINAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS AGAINST ANY PLAINTIFF SHALL FOREVER BAR ANY FURTHER CLAIM, SUIT, OR DEMAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OR CONTROVERSY.'
YOUR CLAIM WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 4, 1955, INVOLVES THE IDENTICAL ISSUES CONSIDERED IN THE CASE DECIDED MAY 13, 1960, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. THE MATTER IS NOW RES JUDICATA AND UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 28 U.S.C. 2519, FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THIS OFFICE IS BARRED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS DECISION.