A-31615, JUNE 3, 1930, 9 COMP. GEN. 500

A-31615: Jun 3, 1930

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHICH WAS BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ERRONEOUSLY APPORTIONED AND ACTUALLY PAID DIRECTLY TO THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF THE VETERAN. WHICH WAS BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ERRONEOUSLY APPORTIONED AND ACTUALLY PAID DIRECTLY TO THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF THE VETERAN. THAT THE COMPENSATION AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE VETERAN'S WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN WAS APPORTIONED FROM OCTOBER 24. WHICH WAS THE BEGINNING DATE OF THE ORIGINAL AWARD OF COMPENSATION. THE AWARD OF APPORTIONED COMPENSATION IN FAVOR OF THE WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN WAS MADE FROM OCTOBER 24. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BUREAU SHOWING THAT THE SEPARATION HAD BEGUN ON JUNE 12. WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY PAID ENTIRELY TO THE VETERAN UP TO THE DATE OF THE SEPARATION.

A-31615, JUNE 3, 1930, 9 COMP. GEN. 500

VETERANS' BUREAU - REVIVAL OF INSURANCE DISABILITY COMPENSATION, WHICH WAS BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ERRONEOUSLY APPORTIONED AND ACTUALLY PAID DIRECTLY TO THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF THE VETERAN, RATHER THAN DIRECTLY TO THE VETERAN HIMSELF, FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE THE STATUS OF SEPARATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE ACTUALLY BEGAN, MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION AND APPLIED AS PREMIUM TO REVIVE LAPSED TERM INSURANCE UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 799.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES VETERANS' BUREAU, JUNE 3, 1930:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 30, 1930, TRANSMITTING FOR CONSIDERATION THE WAR-RISK INSURANCE CASE OF SAMUEL BURNETT, XC 1246587, INVOLVING THE QUESTION WHETHER DISABILITY COMPENSATION, WHICH WAS BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ERRONEOUSLY APPORTIONED AND ACTUALLY PAID DIRECTLY TO THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF THE VETERAN, RATHER THAN DIRECTLY TO THE VETERAN HIMSELF, FOR A PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE THE STATUS OF SEPARATION BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE ACTUALLY BEGAN, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION AND APPLIED AS PREMIUMS TO REVIVE INSURANCE UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 305 OF THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 2, 1926, 44 STAT. 799.

YOU STATE THE FACTS AS FOLLOWS:

THE FACTS SHOW THAT EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1917, THE VETERAN APPLIED FOR WAR RISK YEARLY RENEWABLE TERM INSURANCE IN THE SUM OF $10,000 WHICH LAPSED APRIL 1, 1919. A PORTION OF THE LAPSED INSURANCE HAS BEEN REVIVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,246.00. ON AUGUST 22, 1922, THE FORMER WIFE OF THE VETERAN SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT SHOWING THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SEPARATION BETWEEN HERSELF AND HER HUSBAND FROM AND AFTER JUNE 12, 1921. IT APPEARS, HOWEVER, THAT THE COMPENSATION AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE VETERAN'S WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN WAS APPORTIONED FROM OCTOBER 24, 1919, WHICH WAS THE BEGINNING DATE OF THE ORIGINAL AWARD OF COMPENSATION. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT ON OCTOBER 25, 1922, THE AWARD OF APPORTIONED COMPENSATION IN FAVOR OF THE WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN WAS MADE FROM OCTOBER 24, 1919, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE BUREAU SHOWING THAT THE SEPARATION HAD BEGUN ON JUNE 12, 1921. THIS RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER THE COMPENSATION ERRONEOUSLY APPORTIONED IN FAVOR OF THE WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN, AND WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY PAID ENTIRELY TO THE VETERAN UP TO THE DATE OF THE SEPARATION, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS UNCOLLECTED COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 305.

AS THE RESULT OF A RECENT INVESTIGATION AS TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IT IS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THESE PARTIES; THAT IS, THE VETERAN, HIS WIFE, AND HIS TWO CHILDREN, LIVED TOGETHER UNTIL JUNE 12, 1921, WHEN THEY SEPARATED AND DID NOT LIVE TOGETHER AFTER THAT TIME. THE WIFE WAS GRANTED A DIVORCE BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO, AT THE SEPTEMBER, 1921, TERM.

THE VETERAN DIED NOVEMBER 9, 1925. HE HAD NAMED AS BENEFICIARIES OF HIS INSURANCE HIS WIFE AND TWO CHILDREN, AND UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 305 AS AMENDED, THE TWO CHILDREN WOULD RECEIVE ANY REVIVED INSURANCE.

THE DISABILITY COMPENSATION IN QUESTION COVERED A PERIOD DURING WHICH IT IS SHOWN THE VETERAN AND HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN WERE LIVING TOGETHER OR DURING WHICH THE VETERAN WAS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR SUPPORT. IT IS PLAIN COMPENSATION WAS COLLECTED. WHILE NOT COLLECTED BY THE VETERAN HIMSELF, IT WAS COLLECTED BY THOSE FOR WHOSE SUPPORT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE AND WHO WOULD NOW BENEFIT BY PAYMENT OF ANY INSURANCE CONSIDERED AS REVIVED BY THE APPLICATION OF THIS SAME COMPENSATION AS PREMIUMS. THE VETERAN RECEIVED AN INDIRECT BENEFIT BY THE PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION, AND THE WIFE AND CHILDREN A DIRECT BENEFIT. THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO BASIS, EITHER IN LAW OR EQUITY, FOR HOLDING THAT THE WORDS "NOT COLLECTED," APPEARING IN SECTION 305 OF THE STATUTE, ARE APPLICABLE TO COMPENSATION ACTUALLY PAID TO THE WIFE AND CHILDREN OF THE VETERAN, FOR WHOSE SUPPORT THE VETERAN WAS RESPONSIBLE, SO AS TO PERMIT SAID COMPENSATION NOW TO BE USED AGAINS AS INSURANCE PREMIUMS TO REVIVE LAPSED INSURANCE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TWO CHILDREN OF THE VETERAN.

YOU ARE ADVISED, THEREFORE, THAT THE COMPENSATION PAID AS SET FORTH IN YOUR SUBMISSION MAY NOT BE NOW APPLIED TO REVIVE LAPSED INSURANCE.