B-117149, OCT 30, 1953

B-117149: Oct 30, 1953

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

APPARENTLY HE DID NOT THEN OFFICIALLY REPORT HER AS HIS DEPENDENT SINCE HE STATES THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME HE LEFT CHINA HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS ILLEGAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS PERFORMED "OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT" OF THE MARINE CORPS. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE SERVICE ON SEPTEMBER 19. THAT HE WAS CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND LATER WAS COMMISSIONED A SECOND LIEUTENANT IN DECEMBER 1951. THAT A SON WAS BORN TO HIS ALLEGED WIFE IN SHANGHAI ON JUNE 22. HE INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE HIS SON MOVED TO THE UNITED STATES. THAT HIS MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL. HE REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED LEAVE EN ROUTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITING HONG KONG.

B-117149, OCT 30, 1953

PRECIS-UNAVAILABLE

MAJOR J. D. CONNOLLY, USMC:

BY FIRST ENDORSEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1953, THE COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS FORWARDED YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1953, WITH ENCLOSURES, FOR ADVANCE DECISION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF PAYMENT TO SECOND LIEUTENANT DEAN E. MEARS, USMCR, OF INCREASED ALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF A DEPENDENT WIFE, FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT AS AN OFFICER AND ENTRY ON ACTIVE DUTY ON DECEMBER 19, 1951, TO THE PRESENT TIME.

WITH THE CLAIM SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR PAYMENT, THE OFFICER FURNISHED A SWORN STATEMENT IN WHICH HE ALLEGES THAT ON JUNE 16, 1948, WHILE SERVING AS AN ENLISTED MAN WITH THE MARINE CORPS AT TSINGTAO, CHINA, AND DURING A PERIOD OF LEAVE, HE MARRIED ONE MYRANDALINDA C. GONZALVES AT SHANGHAI, CHINA, BY CHINESE CIVIL CEREMONY, AND THAT THEY LIVED AT TSINGTAO UNTIL HE CAME BACK TO THE UNITED STATES IN DECEMBER OF THAT YEAR, AT WHICH TIME SHE RETURNED TO SHANGHAI. APPARENTLY HE DID NOT THEN OFFICIALLY REPORT HER AS HIS DEPENDENT SINCE HE STATES THAT PRIOR TO THE TIME HE LEFT CHINA HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS ILLEGAL DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS PERFORMED "OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT THE CONSENT" OF THE MARINE CORPS. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WAS DISCHARGED FROM THE SERVICE ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1949, AND ENLISTED IN THE MARINE CORPS RESERVE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THAT HE WAS CALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY THE FOLLOWING YEAR AND LATER WAS COMMISSIONED A SECOND LIEUTENANT IN DECEMBER 1951. HE STATES FURTHER, THAT A SON WAS BORN TO HIS ALLEGED WIFE IN SHANGHAI ON JUNE 22, 1949, AND THAT SHE AND THEIR CHILD MOVED TO MACAU (MACAO), CHINA, IN AUGUST 1949 WHERE SHE NOW LIVES; THAT HE LOST CONTACT WITH HER DURING MOST OF 1952; THAT UPON HIS ARRIVAL IN KOREA IN THAT YEAR, HE INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE HIS SON MOVED TO THE UNITED STATES, HE HAVING BEEN ADVISED BY THE AMERICAN CONSUL IN PUSAN, KOREA, THAT HIS MARRIAGE WAS LEGAL; AND THAT UPON HIS SECOND RETURN TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE SUMMER OF 1953, HE REQUESTED AND WAS GRANTED LEAVE EN ROUTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITING HONG KONG, CHINA, TO ARRANGE FOR THE MOVEMENT OF HIS SON TO THIS COUNTRY, BUT THAT UPON HIS ARRIVAL AT HONG KONG HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE BOY HAD DIED THE PREVIOUS YEAR. FINALLY, HE STATES THAT THE ORIGINAL MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN LOST; THAT HIS ATTEMPT TO SECURE A COPY THEREOF FROM HIS WIFE DURING HIS VISIT AT HONG KONG WAS UNSUCCESSFUL; AND THAT DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INSTITUTED BY HIM.

IN CASES OF THIS TYPE WHERE THE OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN CONCERNED HAS NOT OFFICIALLY REPORTED HIS MARRIAGE WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS AND HAS NOT REQUESTED PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES WHICH ARE PAYABLE TO MILITARY PERSONNEL OR THEIR DEPENDENTS BY REASON OF SUCH DEPENDENCY, THIS OFFICE HAS REQUIRED POSITIVE PROOF OF THE ALLEGED RELATIONSHIP OF HUSBAND AND WIFE. ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER STATES THAT A MARRIAGE CEREMONY WAS PERFORMED IN JUNE 1948, IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SUBSEQUENTLY ADVISED THE MARINE CORPS MANY TIMES THAT HE WAS NOT MARRIED AND THAT AS LATE AS FEBRUARY 1953 HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS AN UNMARRIED MAN. IF A VALID CIVIL MARRIAGE CEREMONY WAS PERFORMED IN CHINA, IT IS PRESUMED THAT A RECORD THEREOF EXISTS AT SHANGHAI AND SINCE HE INDICATES THAT THE OTHER PARTY TO THE CEREMONY HAS A COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE IT APPEARS THAT DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE IS IN EXISTENCE AT THE PRESENT TIME.

ACCORDINGLY, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE PRESENT RECORD DOES NOT FURNISH A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES CLAIMED.