B-155572, AUG. 22, 1966
Highlights
HEADQUARTERS STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 2. WHILE YOU WERE ON DUTY AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER OF THE U.S. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1. NOT DETERMINED AS INADEQUATE (SO AS TO BE CONSIDERED NONAVAILABLE AS BACHELOR OFFICER QUARTERS) WERE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR OCCUPANCY AND WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO YOU BUT FOR YOUR ELECTION TO LIVE OFF THE POST. TO YOU WE SET FORTH THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE RECORD BEFORE US AND FULLY EXPLAINED THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIM AND CONCLUDED THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE SUSTAINED. THE MATTER WAS RECONSIDERED IN OUR DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 19. TO YOU AND WE CONCLUDED THAT OUR PRIOR ACTION IN THE MATTER WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE AFFIRMED.
B-155572, AUG. 22, 1966
TO MR. EUGENE R. THOMAS, HEADQUARTERS STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 2, 1966, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR STATION ALLOWANCES AND BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 9, 1963, TO JANUARY 31, 1964, WHILE YOU WERE ON DUTY AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER OF THE U.S. AIR FORCE AT DON MUANG AIR BASE, THAILAND, INCIDENT TO ORDERS DATED DECEMBER 3, 1962. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 1964, FOR THE REASON THAT THE RECORD SHOWED THAT QUARTERS, NOT DETERMINED AS INADEQUATE (SO AS TO BE CONSIDERED NONAVAILABLE AS BACHELOR OFFICER QUARTERS) WERE AVAILABLE FOR YOUR OCCUPANCY AND WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO YOU BUT FOR YOUR ELECTION TO LIVE OFF THE POST.
IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 31, 1964, B-155572, TO YOU WE SET FORTH THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE RECORD BEFORE US AND FULLY EXPLAINED THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE CLAIM AND CONCLUDED THAT THE SETTLEMENT WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE SUSTAINED. THE MATTER WAS RECONSIDERED IN OUR DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 19, MARCH 10, AND JUNE 9, 1965, B-155572, TO YOU AND WE CONCLUDED THAT OUR PRIOR ACTION IN THE MATTER WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE AFFIRMED.
YOUR PRESENT LETTER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY PERTINENT INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR CLAIM. HOWEVER, YOU EXPRESS YOUR FEELING THAT THE DECISIONS RENDERED ON YOUR CLAIM BY THE FORMER COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WERE CLEARLY IN ERROR AND YOU REQUEST THE PRESENT COMPTROLLER GENERAL TO REVIEW THE MATTER AND TO ORDER THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.
IT IS A WELL SETTLED RULE THAT AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT REVERSE A DECISION MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE EXCEPT UPON PRODUCTION OF NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR TO CORRECT MANIFEST MISTAKES OF FACT SUCH AS ERRORS IN CALCULATION OR FOR FRAUD OR COLLUSION. SEE COTTON V. UNITED STATES, 29 CT.CL. 207, 225; 16 COMP. GEN. 51 AND 16 COMP. GEN. 118.
YOUR LETTER CONTAINS NO NEW EVIDENCE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PREVIOUSLY AND THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT YOUR CLAIM INVOLVES ANY MISTAKE OF FACT, FRAUD OR COLLUSION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BASIS TO REVERSE THE DECISIONS RENDERED ON YOUR CLAIM BY THE FORMER COMPTROLLER GENERAL. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION THAT MAY BE TAKEN IN THE MATTER.