B-139908, SEP. 8, 1959
Highlights
DEFORD: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR POSTCARD DATED AUGUST 17. WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 15 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942. ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THOSE PROVISIONS. THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED. THERE IS NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS A PETITION ON WHICH YOUR NAME APPEARS AS PLAINTIFF NO. 138. THE PETITION INVOLVES THE SAME STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE IDENTICAL ISSUES RAISED IN YOUR CLAIM WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE.
B-139908, SEP. 8, 1959
TO MR. LESTER J. DEFORD:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR POSTCARD DATED AUGUST 17, 1959, CONCERNING THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR INCREASED RETIRED PAY COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 15 OF THE PAGE READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942.
WE HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 15 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 367, 368, APPLIES ONLY TO OFFICERS OF THE REGULAR SERVICES AND THAT RESERVE OFFICERS RETIRED NOT BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY, ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF THOSE PROVISIONS. THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS TAKEN THE SAME VIEW IN ITS OPINIONS RENDERED IN BERRY V. UNITED STATES, 123 C.CLS. NO. 530, THE REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES, 125 C.CLS. 108.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.
THERE IS NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS A PETITION ON WHICH YOUR NAME APPEARS AS PLAINTIFF NO. 138, IN THE CASE OF JOHN C. ABBOTT, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, C.CLS. NO. 235-59. THE PETITION INVOLVES THE SAME STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE IDENTICAL ISSUES RAISED IN YOUR CLAIM WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE.