A-16259, DECEMBER 29, 1926, 6 COMP. GEN. 422

A-16259: Dec 29, 1926

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

CHECK AGE - ABSENCE DUE TO MISCONDUCT - NAVY WHERE THE PAY OF AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY WAS CHECKED FOR ABSENCE FROM DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF MISCONDUCT. A SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT SUCH DISABILITY WAS INCURRED IN LINE OF DUTY. WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF PAY WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF AUGUST 29. WHILE ABSENT FROM DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF SICKNESS REPORTED BY BOARDS OF MEDICAL SURVEY TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT. FROM THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY THAT HE WAS ADMITTED TO THE SICK LIST AT SHANGHAI. THE DIAGNOSIS WAS CHANGED TO NEURITIS. HE WAS RECOMMENDED FOR TRANSFER TO THE NAVAL HOSPITAL. HE WAS GIVEN THE SAME DIAGNOSIS AS FOUND JANUARY 2.

A-16259, DECEMBER 29, 1926, 6 COMP. GEN. 422

PAY, CHECK AGE - ABSENCE DUE TO MISCONDUCT - NAVY WHERE THE PAY OF AN OFFICER OF THE NAVY WAS CHECKED FOR ABSENCE FROM DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF MISCONDUCT, PURSUANT TO REPORTS OF THREE BOARDS OF MEDICAL SURVEY, APPROVED BY THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY AND THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY CONCURRENTLY WITH THE DISABILITY, A SUBSEQUENT CHANGE OF THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT SUCH DISABILITY WAS INCURRED IN LINE OF DUTY, CONTRARY TO THE CONTEMPORANEOUS OFFICIAL RECORD AND ACTION, ON EVIDENCE MERELY RAISING A DOUBT AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS ACTION, WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF PAY WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1916, 39 STAT. 580.

DECISION BY ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL GINN, DECEMBER 29, 1926:

LIEUT. ANDREW L. HAAS, UNITED STATES NAVY, HAS REQUESTED REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT NO. 100928-N, DATED MARCH 24, 1926, DISALLOWING HIS CLAIM FOR PAY AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 22, 1921, TO JULY 27, 1921, WHILE ABSENT FROM DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF SICKNESS REPORTED BY BOARDS OF MEDICAL SURVEY TO HAVE BEEN DUE TO HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.

CLAIMANT'S COMPLETE MEDICAL HISTORY HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED, BUT IT APPEARS FROM THE REPORT OF NOVEMBER 27, 1925, FROM THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY THAT HE WAS ADMITTED TO THE SICK LIST AT SHANGHAI, CHINA, ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 15, 1920, WITH A DIAGNOSIS OF ENDOCARDITIS, ACUTE, ORIGIN IN LINE OF DUTY DUE TO EXPOSURE WHILE ON DUTY ON THE U.S.S. MONOCACY AND TRIP FROM THAT SHIP TO SHANGHAI. A BOARD OF MEDICAL SURVEY CONVENED DECEMBER 30, 1920, IN HIS CASE CONCURRED IN THIS DIAGNOSIS, AND FURTHER STATED THAT HE SHOWED SIGNS OF MULTIPLE NEURITIS. ON JANUARY 2, 1921, THE DIAGNOSIS WAS CHANGED TO NEURITIS, MULTIPLE INTERCURRENT "PROBABLY" DUE TO EXPOSURE IN MAKING A WET, RAINY, COLD TRIP IN OPEN BOATS DOWN THE UPPER YANGTZE. HE WAS RECOMMENDED FOR TRANSFER TO THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, MARE ISLAND, CALIF., FOR TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION, AND COMMENCED THE JOURNEY VIA THE S.S. VENEZUELA JANUARY 29, 1921. UPON ADMISSION TO SUCH HOSPITAL, FEBRUARY 22, 1921, HE WAS GIVEN THE SAME DIAGNOSIS AS FOUND JANUARY 2, 1921, EXCEPT AS TO ORIGIN OF DISABILITY, WHICH WAS CHANGED TO "NOT IN THE LINE OF DUTY, THE RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, PROBABLY THE RESULT OF HIS INTEMPERATE USE OF ALCOHOL.' CLAIMANT WAS ADVISED OF THE ENTRY AND THE RECORD SHOWS HE FILED A STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL TO SUCH FINDING. ON MARCH 26, 1921, HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, LEAGUE ISLAND, PA., WHERE HE WAS ADMITTED APRIL 5, 1921, WITH THE SAME DIAGNOSIS AS THAT GIVEN AT THE NAVAL HOSPITAL, MARE ISLAND, CALIF. ANOTHER BOARD OF MEDICAL SURVEY WAS CONVENED APRIL 12, 1921, WHICH DIAGNOSED HIS DISABILITY AS "NEURITIS, MULTIPLE, ORIGIN NOT IN THE LINE OF DUTY, DISABILITY IS THE RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT.' THIS DIAGNOSIS WAS CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER BOARD OF MEDICAL SURVEY CONVENED JULY 13, 1921. THE FINDINGS OF THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH BOARDS OF MEDICAL SURVEY WERE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY JULY 18, 1921, AND WERE APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY JULY 22, 1921. HE WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL TO DUTY JULY 27, 1921.

NO PAYMENTS OF PAY OR ALLOWANCES WERE MADE TO CLAIMANT FROM FEBRUARY 22, 1921, THE DATE IT WAS DETERMINED BY COMPETENT MEDICAL AUTHORITY THAT HIS DISABILITY WAS NOT IN LINE OF DUTY, UNTIL JULY 27, 1921, THE DATE HE WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL TO DUTY. THE CLAIM FOR SUCH PAY AND ALLOWANCES IS BASED ON A RECONSIDERATION OF THE RECORD REQUESTED BY CLAIMANT SEPTEMBER 10, 1923, AND THE APPROVAL JULY 25, 1924, BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY THAT THE PREVIOUS HOLDING IN THIS CASE BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE CONDITION FROM WHICH CLAIMANT SUFFERED BE HELD TO HAVE ORIGINATED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.

THE RECORD SUBMITTED SHOWS AS THE BASIS OF SUCH RECONSIDERATION CLAIMANT'S LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1923, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AS FOLLOWS:

1. AT THE SUGGESTION OF THE SURGEON GENERAL OF THE NAVY, WHOM I TOOK OCCASION TO SEE WHILE ON A RECENT VISIT TO WASHINGTON, AND PERSONALLY CALLED HIS ATTENTION TO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, I AM FORWARDING HEREWITH A STATEMENT FROM LIEUTENANT COMMANDER F. CERES (M.C.), U.S. NAVY, AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT RECONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE.

2. THE MEDICAL HISTORY OF THE CASE IS IN THE HANDS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND I TAKE THIS OCCASION TO REITERATE TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT I AM NOT NOW AND HAVE NEVER BEEN EXCESSIVELY INDULGENT IN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. MY USE IN CHINA OF ALCOHOL, AS IT IS NOW, WAS ABSTEMIOUS.

3. I ALSO DESIRE TO CALL THE DEPARTMENT'S ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT CHECK AGE OF MY PAY WAS MADE BETWEEN THE DATES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1921, AND JULY 27, 1921, AND IT IS REQUESTED THAT REFUND BE AUTHORIZED.

4. THE DEPARTMENT'S ACTION IN THIS CASE TO REMEDY WHAT I HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED A GROSS INJUSTICE IS EARNESTLY REQUESTED.

BY INDORSEMENT ON SUCH LETTER THE CHIEF, BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, STATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1923, THAT---

2. IN ITS FORMER CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE, THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY HAD INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE RECORDS ON FILE IN THIS BUREAU TO THE EFFECT THAT THE MULTIPLE NEURITIS FROM WHICH LIEUTENANT HAAS SUFFERED WAS DUE TO EXPOSURE DURING A WET, RAINY, COLD TRIP IN AN OPEN BOAT DOWN THE UPPER YANGTZE RIVER AND IT WAS THE OPINION OF THIS BUREAU THAT SUCH EXPOSURE ALONE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING MULTIPLE NEURITIS. IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS FACTOR MIGHT PROVE AN EXCITING ONE ON THE BASIS OF SOME FACTOR RECOGNIZED AS THE BASIC CAUSE OF MULTIPLE NEURITIS, AS ALCOHOL OR OTHER POISONS OR DISEASE OR VARIOUS KINDS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES. THERE WAS, HOWEVER, NO HISTORY OF ANY BASIC CAUSE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LINE OF DUTY.

3. HOWEVER, IN THE STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT COMMANDER F. CERES, (M.C.), U.S. NAVY HEREWITH, WE FIND A STATEMENT OF A HISTORY OF GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER WITH EXCESSIVE DIARRHEA WHILE LIEUTENANT HAAS WAS IN COMMAND OF A SHIP 1,500 MILES UP THE YANGTZE, AND THE FURTHER STATEMENT IS MADE THAT WHILE EN ROUTE TO SHANGHAI, THE BOAT IN WHICH HE WAS TRAVELING WAS UPSET AND HE BECAME SUBMERGED IN THE COLD WATERS OF THE RIVER. IT WAS THE OPINION OF DR. CERES THAT THIS SUDDEN EXPOSURE WAS MOST LIKELY THE PRECIPITATING CAUSE OF LIEUTENANT HAAS' ILLNESS AND THE STATEMENT IS FURTHER MADE THAT THE QUESTION OF ALCOHOL WAS GONE INTO FULLY AND THAT THIS, AS A FACTOR IN THE CAUSATION OF THE DISEASE, WAS ELIMINATED.

4. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT AS TO GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER WITH EXCESSIVE DIARRHEA, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO CONSIDER THAT A FORM OF BACILLARY DYSENTERY MIGHT HAVE EXISTED DURING THIS PERIOD OF GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER. IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT BACILLARY DYSENTERY MAY BE A FACTOR IN THE PRODUCTION OF MULTIPLE NEURITIS. OF COURSE, THE SYMPTOM COMPLEX IN THIS CASE OF MULTIPLE NEURITIS AND CARDIAC INVOLVEMENT IS SUGGESTIVE OF BERIBERI, BUT IT IS NOT BELIEVED THAT BERIBERI, A DISEASE ASSOCIATED WITH VITAMIN DEFICIENCY, COULD BE CONSIDERED IN ONE HAVING ACCESS TO THE WELL-BALANCED DIET OF ANY WARDROOM MESS OF THE NAVY. HOWEVER, SUCH A VITAMIN DEFICIENCY MIGHT ARISE FROM MALASSIMILATION AS WELL AS FROM FAILURE TO INGEST A WELL BALANCED RATION. HERE WE HAVE A HISTORY OF EXCESSIVE DIARRHEA ALONG WITH GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER AND IF SUCH A CONDITION WERE TO EXIST THROUGH AN EXTENDED PERIOD IT IS WITHIN THE RANGE OF POSSIBILITY THAT THE NECESSARY VITAMINS WERE LOST AS THE RESULT OF MALASSIMILATION CONNECTED WITH EXCESSIVE DIARRHEA. THE STATEMENT IN THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH OF DR. CERES LETTER, THAT THE QUESTION OF ALCOHOL WAS GONE INTO THOROUGHLY AND THE BOARD OF MEDICAL SURVEY WAS INFORMED THAT THE PATIENT HAD NOT TAKEN A DRINK OF AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE FOR TWO MONTHS PREVIOUS TO THE ONSET OF HIS ILLNESS AND THAT HIS DRINKING PREVIOUS TO THAT WAS FAIRLY ABSTEMIOUS, IS A RATHER STRONG STATEMENT IN REBUTTAL OF THE LATER STATEMENT ATTRIBUTING THE DISEASE TO ALCOHOL.

IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HIS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CONTEMPORANEOUS ACTION IN THE CASE BE MODIFIED, THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY IN INDORSEMENT OF FEBRUARY 2, 1924, TO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY, STATED:

2. IN VIEW OF THE CONTEMPORANEOUS MEDICAL RECORDS AND THE MEDICAL SURVEY DATED DECEMBER 30, 1920, IN THIS CASE, AND ALSO THE LETTER (SECOND ENDORSEMENT) DATED SEPTEMBER 4, 1923, BY LIEUTENANT COMMANDER CERES, MEDICAL CORPS (WHO FIRST ATTENDED LIEUTENANT HAAS), IN WHICH CONCLUSIVE STATEMENTS ARE MADE RELATIVE TO THE ORIGIN OF THE PHYSICAL DISABILITY AND CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTORS IN THE HISTORY OF THIS CASE, WHICH INTRODUCE THE QUESTION OF ,REASONABLE DOUBT," THIS BUREAU IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE DISABILITY SHOULD BE HELD TO BE IN THE LINE OF DUTY AND NOT THE RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT. THE BUREAU, THEREFORE, ADHERES TO THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE FIFTH PARAGRAPH OF ITS LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1923, HEREWITH.

THE ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1916, 39 STAT. 580, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 1, 1918, 4) STAT. 717, IS AS FOLLOWS:

HEREAFTER NO OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN IN THE NAVY OR MARINE CORPS IN ACTIVE SERVICE WHO SHALL BE ABSENT FROM DUTY ON ACCOUNT OF INJURY, SICKNESS OR DISEASE RESULTING FROM HIS OWN INTEMPERATE USE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT, SHALL RECEIVE PAY FOR THE PERIOD OF SUCH ABSENCE, THE TIME SO ABSENT AND THE CAUSE THEREOF TO BE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUCH PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: * * *

NAVAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT A HEALTH RECORD SHALL BE OPENED FOR EACH OFFICER, THAT IT SHALL BE PLACED IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE SHIP OR STATION TO WHICH HE IS ATTACHED, AND THAT IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE MEDICAL OFFICER TO KEEP SUCH RECORD COMPLETE, AND THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ORDER FOR AN OFFICER TO APPEAR BEFORE A BOARD INVOLVING A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION THE HEALTH RECORD SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE SENIOR MEMBER OF SUCH BOARD FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AND THE ENTRY OF THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD. CHAPTER 14, MANUAL OF THE MEDICAL DEPARTMENT. PARAGRAPH 2505 OF SUCH MANUAL PROVIDES:

(2) WHEN THE MEDICAL OFFICER HAVING THE CUSTODY OF THE HEALTH RECORD OF AN OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN OF THE NAVY OR MARINE CORPS ENTERS ON SUCH RECORD THAT ANY DISABILITY FOR WHICH SUCH OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN IS ADMITTED TO THE SICK LIST WAS NOT RECEIVED IN LINE OF DUTY OR WAS THE RESULT OF HIS OWN INTEMPERATE USE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS OR OTHER MISCONDUCT, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF SUCH MEDICAL OFFICER TO INFORM THE PATIENT WHEN SUCH AN ADVERSE ENTRY IS MADE, PROVIDED THE CONDITION OF THE PATIENT DOES NOT MAKE SUCH ACTION INADVISABLE. HE SHALL INFORM THE COMMANDING OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME AND THE PROCEDURE THEN SHALL BE AS PRESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 4.

(4) IT SHALL THEN BE THE RIGHT OF SUCH INDIVIDUAL TO REQUEST THE COMMANDING OFFICER TO HAVE ENTERED ON THE HEALTH RECORD HEARING SUCH AN ADVERSE ENTRY SUCH EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL AS HE MAY DESIRE TO PRESENT. SHOULD SUCH EVIDENCE BE PRESENTED, A COPY OF SUCH ENTRY AND EVIDENCE SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE CHIEF OF THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY FOR AN EXPRESSION OF MEDICAL OPINION AND SHALL THEN BE REFERRED TO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR DECISION BEFORE FILING. THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY SHALL THEN INFORM THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE DECISION FOR ENTRY IN THE HEALTH RECORD.

THESE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROCEDURE IN THIS CASE, MADE PURSUANT TO LAW AND HAVING THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW, ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT IT SHALL "THEN" BE THE RIGHT OF THE OFFICER TO PRESENT EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL AS HE MAY DESIRE TO PRESENT. THAT IS, AFTER THE ADVERSE ENTRY HAS BEEN ENTERED ON HIS HEALTH RECORD AND HE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF SUCH ENTRY, AND PRIOR TO ITS BEING SENT TO THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY FOR AN EXPRESSION OF MEDICAL OPINION. THE ENTIRE RECORD, INCLUDING THE EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL, IS THEN FOR CONSIDERATION AND FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT CLAIMANT WAS ADVISED OF THE FIRST OPINION, THAT HIS DISABILITY WAS NOT IN LINE OF DUTY AND WAS THE RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, AND THAT HE SUBMITTED IN REBUTTAL SUCH EVIDENCE AS HE DESIRED. THIS RECORD WAS PRESUMABLY TRANSMITTED TO THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, BUT ACTION THEREON APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN UNTIL CLAIMANT WAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL WHERE ANOTHER BOARD OF MEDICAL SURVEY WAS CONVENED TO EXAMINE INTO HIS CASE, THIS BOARD ALSO REPORTED THE ORIGIN OF CLAIMANT'S DISABILITY AS "NOT IN THE LINE OF DUTY," THIS REPORT WAS CONCURRED IN BY STILL ANOTHER BOARD OF MEDICAL SURVEY WHICH WAS CONVENED APPARENTLY THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF THE CLAIMANT. WOULD APPEAR THAT EACH OF THESE BOARDS HAD BEFORE IT THE PREVIOUS MEDICAL HISTORY SHOWING ALL PRIOR ILLNESS AND TREATMENT THEREFOR AS WAS REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS. ALL OF THESE REPORTS AND THE REBUTTAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY CLAIMANT WERE BEFORE THE BUREAU OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THREE BOARDS THAT THE ORIGIN OF CLAIMANT'S DISABILITY WAS NOT IN LINE OF DUTY WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY SUCH BUREAU AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FINDINGS AND DECISION MADE ON THIS RECORD CONCURRENTLY WITH THE DISABILITY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IS CHANGED TWO YEARS AND TWO MONTHS THEREAFTER ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT "A FORM OF BACILLARY DYSENTERY MIGHT HAVE EXISTED DURING" A PERIOD OF GASTROINTESTINAL DISORDER PRIOR TO CLAIMANT'S ILLNESS, THAT BACILLARY DYSENTERY AS WELL AS ALCOHOL IS RECOGNIZED AS A THE PRODUCTION OF MULTIPLE NEURITIS, AND THEREFORE THIS NOW ASSERTED ASSUMPTION INTRODUCES THE QUESTION OF "REASONABLE DOUBT.' THERE IS AN ENTIRE ABSENCE OF "DIRECT, POSITIVE, AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS ERROR OR MISTAKE OF FACT OR FRAUD IN MAKING SAID RECORD.' THE FACT THAT THE ACTION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PREDECESSOR IS FOR REOPENING REQUIRES AT LEAST A CLEAR SHOWING OF FACTS NOT AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE FORMER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. DIFFERENCES OF OPINION DO NOT AUTHORIZE REOPENINGS. THE TIME OF CLAIMANT'S ABSENCE FROM DUTY AND THE CAUSES THEREOF HAVING BEEN ASCERTAINED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH SUCH ABSENCE UNDER THE PROCEDURE AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; SUCH CONTEMPORANEOUS ACTION BY THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE NAVY MUST CONTROL IN THE SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS UNLESS THE CONTEMPORANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS SHOWN BY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON MISTAKE OF FACT OR OF FRAUD. THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON SUCH GROUNDS. SEE A-6481, JULY 28, 1925.

THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION PRESENTS NOTHING AS A BASIS FOR ACTION BY THIS OFFICE TO ALLOW A CLAIM HERETOFORE DISALLOWED AND UPON REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT IS SUSTAINED.