B-102247, APR. 12, 1960

B-102247: Apr 12, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED MARCH 29. THIS BILL WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF WAIVING. PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF ALLOTMENT DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM HIS PAY FOR A CLASS B ALLOTMENT WHICH HE ALLEGED WAS NOT PAID TO HIS DESIGNATED ALLOTTEE (MOTHER) INCIDENT TO HIS ARMY SERVICE IN WORLD WAR I. CAMPBELL THAT SINCE HIS CLAIM WAS NOT RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE WITHIN 10 YEARS AFTER IT FIRST ACCRUED AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9. WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM CONSIDERING HIS CLAIM. WORLD WAR I ALLOTMENTS AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES WERE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6. PROVIDED THE MOTHER WAS DEPENDENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON THE ENLISTED MAN. CAMPBELL WAS ENLISTED OR INDUCTED ON APRIL 10.

B-102247, APR. 12, 1960

TO JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED MARCH 29, 1960, FILE REFERENCE JAGBB 60/3046 (CAMPBELL, BENJAMIN E.), FROM THE CHIEF, LEGISLATIVE CLAIMS DIVISION, REGARDING H.R. 10902 FOR THE RELIEF OF BENJAMIN E. CAMPBELL.

THIS BILL WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF WAIVING, IN MR. CAMPBELL'S CASE, THE 10-YEAR LIMITATION PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061, 31 U.S.C. 71A, RESPECTING CLAIMS COGNIZABLE BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, IN ORDER TO PAY HIS CLAIM FOR "UNPAID PAY AND FAMILY ALLOWANCE INCIDENT TO HIS MILITARY SERVICE FROM APRIL 10, 1918, TO JULY 1, 1919.'

MR. CAMPBELL, BY LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1950, RECEIVED HERE ON DECEMBER 5, 1950, PRESENTED A CLAIM FOR REFUND OF ALLOTMENT DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM HIS PAY FOR A CLASS B ALLOTMENT WHICH HE ALLEGED WAS NOT PAID TO HIS DESIGNATED ALLOTTEE (MOTHER) INCIDENT TO HIS ARMY SERVICE IN WORLD WAR I. OUR CLAIMS DIVISION, BY LETTER DATED MARCH 1, 1951, ADVISED MR. CAMPBELL THAT SINCE HIS CLAIM WAS NOT RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE WITHIN 10 YEARS AFTER IT FIRST ACCRUED AS PROVIDED IN THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, WE ARE PRECLUDED FROM CONSIDERING HIS CLAIM. BY LETTER DATED JUNE 11, 1951, B-102247, COPY ENCLOSED, WE SUSTAINED THE ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON HIS CLAIM, AND ADVISED HIM THAT DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM A SOLDIER'S PAY FOR CLASS A OR CLASS B ALLOTMENT, BUT ACTUALLY NOT USED FOR THAT PURPOSE, RETAINS ITS STATUS AS PAY.

WORLD WAR I ALLOTMENTS AND FAMILY ALLOWANCES WERE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, 40 STAT. 398, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF JUNE 25, 1918, 40 STAT. 610, 611. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 204 AND 206 OF THAT ACT, IN CASES INVOLVING A CLASS B ALLOTMENT IN FAVOR OF A MOTHER (ONE PARENT), THE ENLISTED MAN MADE A $15 ALLOTMENT AND THE GOVERNMENT MADE A $10 ALLOWANCE, PROVIDED THE MOTHER WAS DEPENDENT IN WHOLE OR IN PART ON THE ENLISTED MAN.

RECORDS ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE SHOW THAT MR. CAMPBELL WAS ENLISTED OR INDUCTED ON APRIL 10, 1918, AT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AND THAT HE WAS DISCHARGED ON JULY 1, 1919, AT CAMP GRANT, ILLINOIS. A TRANSCRIPT OF HIS PAY ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT DEDUCTIONS WERE MADE FROM HIS PAY IN THE SUM OF $221 FOR "CLASS B" ALLOTMENT AT THE RATE OF $15 PER MONTH FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF HIS SERVICE. IT ALSO APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT NO ALLOTMENT PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THIS CASE. PRESUMABLY, MR. CAMPBELL'S APPLICATION FOR CLASS B ALLOTMENT WAS NOT ACTED UPON FAVORABLY BY THE THEN BUREAU OF WAR RISK INSURANCE. HAD MR. CAMPBELL SUBMITTED CLAIM FOR THE AMOUNT WITHHELD FROM HIS PAY PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061, IT APPEARS THAT SUCH CLAIM WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS PART OF HIS PAY REMAINING UNPAID AT TIME OF DISCHARGE. HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED, HOWEVER, TO THAT PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE ALLOTMENT BECAUSE NO AWARD OF GOVERNMENT ALLOWANCE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE. ALSO, CONTRARY TO HIS APPARENT BELIEF, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO ANY INTEREST ON HIS CLAIM, IN VIEW OF THE RULE THAT THE UNITED STATES IS NOT CHARGEABLE WITH INTEREST ON CLAIMS AGAINST IT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY STATUTE. SEE UNITED STATES V. VERDIER, 164 U.S. 213; SHECKELS V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 246 U.S. 338.

THE INFORMATION INDICATED ABOVE WAS INCLUDED IN A REPORT DATED MARCH 29, 1960, B-102247, TO THE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON H.R. 10902. WE POINTED OUT THAT THE ENACTMENT OF LEGISLATION WHICH WAIVES THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061, IN ANY SITUATION, NO MATTER HOW EQUITABLE SUCH ACTION MAY SEEM, ESTABLISHES AN UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT FOR ALL AFFECTED PERSONS TO SEEK SIMILAR LEGISLATION IN THEIR FAVOR AND COULD LEAD EVENTUALLY TO THE UNDERMINING OF THE SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF LIMITATION OF THE TIME WITHIN WHICH CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES MAY BE FILED. SINCE WE DO NOT VIEW SUCH LEGISLATION WITH FAVOR, WE DID NOT RECOMMEND THAT THE BILL BE FAVORABLY CONSIDERED.