B-123156, JUL. 11, 1955

B-123156: Jul 11, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE PRESENT CLAIM WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE. YOUR EARLIER CLAIM WAS PRESENTED ON THE BASIS THAT BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL CIRCULAR LETTER 158-51. WAS STATED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT YOU HAD INDORSED ON YOUR NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT THAT YOU DID NOT DECLINE SUCH APPOINTMENT. WE WERE ADVISED BY THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ON AUGUST 18. SINCE YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF NOTICE OF THAT APPOINTMENT. YOUR PRESENT CLAIM IS APPARENTLY BASED UPON SECTION 312 OF THE NAVAL RESERVE ACT OF 1938. SECTION 312 OF THE ABOVE ACT WAS REPEALED. WHEN YOU WERE PROMOTED ON JUNE 19. THERE APPARENTLY WAS NO AUTHORITY OF LAW FOR THE PAYMENT TO YOU OF THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE HIGHER GRADE FOR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT.

B-123156, JUL. 11, 1955

TO LIEUTENANT KENT A. O-CONNOR, USNR:

THE FIELD BRANCH, BUREAU OF SUPPLIES AND ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, HAS FORWARDED TO US YOUR CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTIVE- DUTY PAY AS A LIEUTENANT (JUNIOR GRADE), UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE, AND ACTIVE-DUTY PAY AS A LIEUTENANT, UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE, FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 1951, TO SEPTEMBER 15, 1951. ON OCTOBER 17, 1952, OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DISALLOWED AN EARLIER CLAIM BY YOU FOR SUCH DIFFERENCE IN PAY FOR THE PERIOD JULY 5, 1951, TO SEPTEMBER 19, 1951. THE PRESENT CLAIM WILL BE CONSIDERED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE DISALLOWANCE.

YOUR EARLIER CLAIM WAS PRESENTED ON THE BASIS THAT BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL CIRCULAR LETTER 158-51, SEPTEMBER 14, 1951, PROMOTED YOU FROM LIEUTENANT (JUNIOR GRADE) TO LIEUTENANT WITH DATE OF RANK AS JULY 5, 1951. THE DISALLOWANCE OF OCTOBER 17, 1952, WAS STATED ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT YOU HAD INDORSED ON YOUR NOTICE OF APPOINTMENT THAT YOU DID NOT DECLINE SUCH APPOINTMENT.

WE WERE ADVISED BY THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL ON AUGUST 18, 1952, THAT YOU HAD NOT ACCEPTED AND COULD NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPOINTMENT OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1951, SINCE YOU WERE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF NOTICE OF THAT APPOINTMENT, AND, HENCE, IT WOULD NOT BE TENDERED TO YOU BY YOUR COMMANDING OFFICER AS REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS.

YOU NOW PRESENT A NEW CLAIM, WITH ENCLOSURES, SHOWING THAT YOU ACCEPTED AN APPOINTMENT, APPARENTLY DATED JUNE 19, 1953, AS A TEMPORARY LIEUTENANT WITH DATE OF RANK AS JULY 5, 1951. YOUR PRESENT CLAIM IS APPARENTLY BASED UPON SECTION 312 OF THE NAVAL RESERVE ACT OF 1938, 52 STAT. 1183, WHICH PROVIDED THAT NAVAL RESERVE OFFICERS ADVANCED TO HIGHER GRADE OR RANK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE HIGHER GRADE OR RANK FROM THE DATES OF RANK STATED IN THE COMMISSIONS. HOWEVER, SECTION 312 OF THE ABOVE ACT WAS REPEALED, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1953, BY SECTION 803 OF THE ARMED FORCES RESERVE ACT OF 1952, 66 STAT. 505. THEREFORE, WHEN YOU WERE PROMOTED ON JUNE 19, 1953, THERE APPARENTLY WAS NO AUTHORITY OF LAW FOR THE PAYMENT TO YOU OF THE PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF THE HIGHER GRADE FOR ANY PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF YOUR APPOINTMENT.