B-115701, MAY 7, 1956

B-115701: May 7, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CURTIS: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 8. WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 27. BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH US WITH ORDERS PLACING YOU IN A FLYING STATUS DURING THAT PERIOD. THE ENCLOSURE WITH YOUR LETTER IS A COPY OF SPECIAL ORDERS NO 5. THE RIGHT TO THE 50 PERCENT INCREASE IN PAY FOR FLYING DUTY UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM WAS CONTINGENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF ORDERS ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY REQUIRING REGULAR AND FREQUENT PARTICIPATION IN AERIAL FLIGHTS AND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF FLIGHTS WAS MADE. BOTH REQUIREMENTS MUST HAVE BEEN MET BEFORE A RIGHT TO THE INCREASE IN PAY ACCRUED AND SINCE NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE COULD LOCATE ANY RECORD THAT YOU HAD EVER BEEN PLACED IN A FLYING STATUS OR ANY INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT RECORDS IN YOUR CASE.

B-115701, MAY 7, 1956

TO MR. DARWIN A. CURTIS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 8, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURE, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR FLYING PAY INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE AS AN ARMY AIR FORCE OFFICER FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 10, 1942, TO AUGUST 18, 1945, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 27, 1953, BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH US WITH ORDERS PLACING YOU IN A FLYING STATUS DURING THAT PERIOD.

THE ENCLOSURE WITH YOUR LETTER IS A COPY OF SPECIAL ORDERS NO 5, HEADQUARTERS, 99TH COMBAT BOMBARDMENT WING (M), APO 638, DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1944, CONFIRMING VERBAL ORDERS OF YOUR COMMANDING OFFICER, ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 19, 1943, DETAILING YOU FOR DUTY WITH THE COMBAT OPERATIONS SECTION OF THAT ORGANIZATION. YOU SAY THAT THESE ORDERS "COVER THE FACTS" THAT YOU "FLEW (17 COMBAT MISSIONS) IN LINE OF DUTY" AND THAT YOU SHOULD THEREFORE BE ENTITLED TO THE CLAIMED FLYING PAY.

AS EXPLAINED TO YOU IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1953, THE RIGHT TO THE 50 PERCENT INCREASE IN PAY FOR FLYING DUTY UNDER THE LAW AND REGULATIONS IN EFFECT DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM WAS CONTINGENT UPON THE EXISTENCE OF ORDERS ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY REQUIRING REGULAR AND FREQUENT PARTICIPATION IN AERIAL FLIGHTS AND EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF FLIGHTS WAS MADE. BOTH REQUIREMENTS MUST HAVE BEEN MET BEFORE A RIGHT TO THE INCREASE IN PAY ACCRUED AND SINCE NEITHER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE COULD LOCATE ANY RECORD THAT YOU HAD EVER BEEN PLACED IN A FLYING STATUS OR ANY INDIVIDUAL FLIGHT RECORDS IN YOUR CASE, THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. IN FACT, YOU ADMITTED IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 27, 1953, THAT AS AN INTELLIGENCE OFFICER YOU FLEW TO "BETTER ENABLE US TO DO OUR JOB OF BRIEFING AND INTERROGATION" AND THAT "WE HAD NO SPECIAL ORDERS.'

THE ORDERS OF FEBRUARY 3, 1944, DID NOT PLACE YOU IN A FLYING STATUS AND, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, ANY FLIGHTS WHICH YOU MIGHT HAVE PERFORMED DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MADE PURSUANT TO ORDERS OF COMPETENT AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE GOVERNING LAW AND REGULATIONS. HENCE, THE RECORD AS SUPPLEMENTED BY THE ORDERS OF FEBRUARY 3, 1944, DOES NOT AFFORD A PROPER BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM, AND THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1953, IS AFFIRMED.