B-131069, MAY 7, 1957
Highlights
SOUTHGATE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF APRIL 16. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM SEATTLE TO MANAHAWKIN. AS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN THAT LETTER. YOUR CLAIM WAS FORFEITED UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 25. WHILE YOU STATE THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MILEAGE FROM SEATTLE OR PHOENIX FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO YOU THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM AND TO POINTS BETWEEN WHICH NO TRAVEL IN FACT WAS PERFORMED. SINCE YOU KNEW YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE IN PHOENIX AND NOT IN SEATTLE. YOUR CERTIFICATION THAT THEY WERE IN SEATTLE CLEARLY WAS A FALSE REPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT.
B-131069, MAY 7, 1957
TO MR. NORMAN E. SOUTHGATE:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE LETTER OF APRIL 16, 1957, WRITTEN IN YOUR BEHALF BY MR. ALBERT SPITZER, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED APRIL 10, 1957. IN THAT DECISION WE SUSTAINED THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 16, 1956, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM PHOENIX, ARIZONA, TO MANAHAWKIN, NEW JERSEY, DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 20 TO 25, 1952, INCIDENT TO YOUR RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON JANUARY 9, 1952. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED REIMBURSEMENT FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS' TRAVEL FROM SEATTLE TO MANAHAWKIN--- WHEREAS THEY ACTUALLY TRAVELED FROM PHOENIX TO MANAHAWKIN.
YOUR PRESENT LETTER DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED BY US IN REACHING THE DECISION OF APRIL 10, 1957. AS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN THAT LETTER, SINCE YOUR DEPENDENTS DID NOT TRAVEL FROM SEATTLE AS YOU CERTIFIED ON YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM, YOUR CLAIM WAS FORFEITED UNDER THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948. WHILE YOU STATE THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MILEAGE FROM SEATTLE OR PHOENIX FOR YOUR DEPENDENTS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR TO YOU THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM AND TO POINTS BETWEEN WHICH NO TRAVEL IN FACT WAS PERFORMED, OR FOR A DISTANCE GREATER THAN THE TRAVEL ACTUALLY PERFORMED BY THEM. SINCE YOU KNEW YOUR DEPENDENTS WERE IN PHOENIX AND NOT IN SEATTLE, YOUR CERTIFICATION THAT THEY WERE IN SEATTLE CLEARLY WAS A FALSE REPRESENTATION OF A MATERIAL FACT.
ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1948, WE ARE WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ALLOW YOUR CLAIM.