B-100137, MAY 14, 1952, 31 COMP. GEN. 596

B-100137, MAY 14, 1952, 31 COMP. GEN. 596

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE - ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES - AUTHORITY TO RENDER DECISIONS AMONG THE DUTIES ASSIGNED TO THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY IN SECTION 302 OF THE BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING ACT, 1921, AS AMENDED, IS THAT OF RENDERING DECISIONS ON CERTAIN SPECIFIC MATTERS AND SUCH DECISIONS, WHEN RENDERED, HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AND ARE AS BINDING AS THEY WOULD BE IF RENDERED BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL PERSONALLY.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO ARTHUR C. MEYERS, MAY 14, 1952:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 11, 1952, RELATIVE TO YOUR RIGHT TO CREDIT FOR MIDSHIPMAN SERVICE AND PASSED MIDSHIPMAN SERVICE AT THE NAVAL ACADEMY PRIOR TO MARCH 4, 1913, IN THE COMPUTATION OF YOUR RETIRED PAY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ACT OF JUNE 29, 1948, 62 STAT. 1087.

BY LETTER DATED JANUARY 21, 1952, FROM THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU WERE FURNISHED A COPY OF DECISION OF THIS OFFICE DATED OCTOBER 19, 1951, B-100137, 31 COMP. GEN. 145, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT MIDSHIPMAN SERVICE, INCLUDING PASSED MIDSHIPMAN SERVICE, MAY NOT BE COUNTED IN THE COMPUTATION OF THE RETIRED PAY IN QUESTION.

APPARENTLY, YOU DO NOT THINK THE SAID DECISION OF OCTOBER 19, 1951, CARRIES WITH IT ANY FINALITY OF ACTION BECAUSE IT WAS RENDERED BY THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT ANY INDICATION THAT IT BORE MY PERSONAL APPROVAL. IN THAT CONNECTION YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO SECTION 302 OF THE BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING ACT, 1921, 42 STAT. 23, AS AMENDED, 31 U.S.C., SUPP. IV, 42, WHICH READS, IN PERTINENT PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL SHALL PERFORM SUCH DUTIES AS MAY BE ASSIGNED TO HIM BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL * * *.'

AND, OVER THE YEARS, AMONG THE DUTIES ASSIGNED BY ME TO THE ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAS BEEN THAT OF RENDERING DECISIONS ON MATTERS INVOLVING MILITARY AND NAVAL PAY AND ALLOWANCES. SUCH DECISIONS, WHEN RENDERED, HAVE THE SAME EFFECT, AND ARE AS BINDING, AS THEY WOULD BE IF RENDERED BY ME PERSONALLY AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE MY PERSONAL APPROVAL.

WITH REFERENCE TO THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN THIS MATTER IN AN OPINION RENDERED BY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY, TO WHICH YOU REFER IN YOUR LETTER, MAY BE ASSURED THAT THOROUGH CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN THERETO WHEN THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED HERE. HOWEVER, THIS OFFICE WAS NOT ABLE TO AGREE WITH SUCH OPINION AND, UNDER THE LAW, THE DECISION OF THIS OFFICE IS CONTROLLING TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IS INVOLVED.

INSOFAR AS THE MERITS OF YOUR CLAIM ARE CONCERNED, IT MAY BE STATED THAT NOTHING IS FOUND IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER, OR IN YOUR PREVIOUS CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH WOULD DISTINGUISH YOUR CASE FROM THAT CONSIDERED IN THE SAID DECISION OF OCTOBER 19, 1951 AND, ACCORDINGLY, AS YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 21, 1952, THERE IS NO PROPER BASIS FOR GIVING FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION TO YOUR CLAIM FOR INCREASED RETIRED PAY BASED ON YOUR MIDSHIPMAN OR PASSED MIDSHIPMAN SERVICE.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR REQUEST THERE IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH A COPY OF B- 100137, DATED JULY 26, 1951, TO MR. HERMAN J. ELSON. WITH RESPECT TO YOUR REQUEST FOR A COPY OF MR. ELSON'S LETTER OF AUGUST 10, 1951, TO THIS OFFICE REGARDING HIS CLAIM RESPECTING HIS RETIRED PAY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT THE FURNISHING THEREOF WOULD SERVE SOME USEFUL PURPOSE, SUCH REQUEST MAY NOT BE GRANTED.