B-108383, AUGUST 27, 1952, 32 COMP. GEN. 107

B-108383: Aug 27, 1952

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SUCH REQUESTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FROM THE DATE OF SETTLEMENT. SO THAT A REQUEST FOR REVIEW WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE UNTIL APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CLAIM SETTLEMENT MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS TIMELY. 1952: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 18. ACCOMPANYING YOUR LETTER WERE A DULY EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING YOU TO ACT IN MR. TOGETHER WITH A PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF A TABULATION OF SERVICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS AT SAULT STE. THERE WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE FROM MR. THE PLACE OR PLACES AT WHICH THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED WERE NOT SPECIFIED. NOR DID THE CLAIM CONTAIN ANY DETAIL AS TO THE DAYS OF SERVICE FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED.

B-108383, AUGUST 27, 1952, 32 COMP. GEN. 107

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE - REVIEW OF CLAIM SETTLEMENTS WHILE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REGULATIONS WHICH PROVIDE FOR REVIEW AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF A CLAIM SETTLED IN THIS OFFICE, UPON APPLICATION OF THE CLAIMANT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY OR AGENT, DO NOT PLACE A SPECIFIC TIME LIMIT UPON REQUESTS FOR REVIEW, SUCH REQUESTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FROM THE DATE OF SETTLEMENT, SO THAT A REQUEST FOR REVIEW WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE UNTIL APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THE CLAIM SETTLEMENT MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS TIMELY, BUT MUST BE REGARDED AS A NEW CLAIM.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL WARREN TO AMY RUTH MAHIN, AUGUST 27, 1952:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 18, 1952, RELATIVE TO THE CLAIM OF HAROLD S. SETTENGREN FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS AMENDED (19 U.S.C. 261), AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, TREASURY DEPARTMENT. ACCOMPANYING YOUR LETTER WERE A DULY EXECUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY AUTHORIZING YOU TO ACT IN MR. SETTENGREN'S BEHALF AND A LETTER FROM HIM DATED JANUARY 15, 1952, ADDRESSED TO THIS OFFICE, TOGETHER WITH A PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF A TABULATION OF SERVICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN, BETWEEN JULY 23, 1940, AND FEBRUARY 13, 1944, FOR WHICH EXTRA COMPENSATION HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON JANUARY 16, 1946, THERE WAS RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE FROM MR. SETTENGREN A CLAIM IN GENERAL TERMS FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,655.78 FOR SERVICES RENDERED FROM " FISCAL YEAR OF 1937" TO JUNE 2, 1944. THE PLACE OR PLACES AT WHICH THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED WERE NOT SPECIFIED, NOR DID THE CLAIM CONTAIN ANY DETAIL AS TO THE DAYS OF SERVICE FOR WHICH PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE WHOLE BURDEN OF DEVELOPING THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO A SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM WAS CAST UPON THE GOVERNMENT. IN DUE COURSE, AFTER RECEIPT OF A REPORT FROM THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AS TO THE SERVICES SHOWN BY THE RECORDS OF THAT BUREAU TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE CLAIMANT, THERE WERE ISSUED TWO CERTIFICATES OF SETTLEMENT, NO. 1844214, DATED MAY 9, 1950 (REWRITTEN AUGUST 9, 1950) IN THE AMOUNT OF $209.88, COVERING THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1936, TO JUNE 30, 1937, AND NO. 1844213, ALSO DATED MAY 9, 1950, IN THE AMOUNT OF $69.96, COVERING THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1937, TO FEBRUARY 26, 1944. IN CONNECTION WITH THE LATTER, THE CLAIMANT WAS ADVISED AS FOLLOWS:

THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE SHOWS THAT YOU WERE ADMINISTRATIVELY PAID DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 27, 1944 TO JUNE 2, 1944 FOR OVERTIME SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1941 (1911), AS AMENDED.

THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT HEREIN ALLOWED IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1937 TO FEBRUARY 26, 1944, AND ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT CLAIMED AND THE AMOUNT ALLOWED IS NECESSARILY DISALLOWED. THE LAST DATE OF SERVICES FOR WHICH ANY PAYMENT WAS DUE WAS REPORTED BY THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS AS AUGUST 1, 1937.

CHECKS IN PAYMENT OF THE CERTIFICATES WERE ISSUED AUGUST 24 AND MAY 24, 1950, RESPECTIVELY.

THE CLAIMANT NOW ASSERTS, OVER A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, THAT HE ACCEPTS THE SETTLEMENTS SHOWN BY THE CERTIFICATES AS PART PAYMENT ONLY AND REQUESTS REVIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE, SAYING THAT THE SETTLEMENTS COVERED SERVICES AT DETROIT, MICHIGAN, ONLY, AND DID NOT COVER THE SERVICES AT SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN, FROM JUNE 23, 1940, TO FEBRUARY 13, 1944, INCLUSIVE.

THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061, FOREVER BARS EVERY CLAIM OR DEMAND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES COGNIZABLE BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE UNLESS SUCH CLAIM BE RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE WITHIN 10 FULL YEARS AFTER THE DATE SUCH CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED. THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ACT, AS SHOWN BY ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, WAS TO RELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NECESSITY FOR RETAINING OR GOING BACK OVER OLD RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SETTLING STALE CLAIMS.

THE REGULATIONS OF THIS OFFICE, 4 C.F.R. 2.1, PROVIDE FOR A REVIEW, IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL, OF A CLAIM SETTLED HERE UPON APPLICATION OF THE CLAIMANT OR HIS DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY OR AGENT. WHILE SUCH REGULATIONS DO NOT PLACE A SPECIFIC TIME LIMIT UPON REQUESTS FOR REVIEW, IT IS OBVIOUS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, SUPRA, AND ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE, THAT AN INDEFINITE TIME MAY NOT BE ALLOWED WHERE, AS IN THIS CASE, SUCH REVIEW WOULD INVOLVE THE EXAMINATION OF RECORDS DIFFERENT FROM THOSE RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENTS, AND THAT THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE RECEIVED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FROM THE DATE OF SETTLEMENT. WITHOUT ATTEMPTING A STRICT DEFINITION OF WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE TIME IN ALL CASES, I CANNOT REGARD AS TIMELY THE REQUEST IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR AND EIGHT MONTHS AFTER THE CLAIMANT HAD BEEN ADVISED BY A NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT--- THE PERTINENT PART OF WHICH IS QUOTED ABOVE--- THAT THE RECORDS DID NOT SHOW MORE THAN THE AMOUNTS STATED THEREIN AS DUE UPON THE PORTION OF THE CLAIM WITHIN THE PERIOD JULY 1937, TO FEBRUARY 26, 1944.

IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOVE, THE INSTANT REQUEST FOR REVIEW MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SUCH BUT MUST BE REGARDED AS A NEW CLAIM, AND UNDER THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, SUPRA, NO CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN TO ANY PORTION THEREOF WHICH DID NOT ACCRUE WITHIN 10 YEARS OF JANUARY 21, 1952, THE DATE OF RECEIPT IN THIS OFFICE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE CONSIDERED HEREIN.

THE CLAIM IS BEING TRANSMITTED TO THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND F*SETTLEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING.