B-123881, JUL. 7, 1955

B-123881: Jul 7, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

PARRIS: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 17. OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT A CLAIM WHICH YOU SUBMITTED IN 1919 FOR THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AUDITOR FOR THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND DISALLOWED BY HIS SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 15. WAS SENTENCED BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL ON BOARD THE U.S.S. WHO WAS THE SENIOR OFFICER PRESENT. THE LOSS OF PAY WAS NOT REMITTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4893. A SUBSEQUENT CLAIM FOR THE COURT-MARTIAL FORFEITURE WAS RECEIVED FROM YOU IN 1925. YOU WERE AGAIN INFORMED OF THE REASON WHY YOUR CLAIM COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. WAS RECEIVED HERE FROM YOU ON NOVEMBER 24. THAT LETTER WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR PRIOR CLAIMS. YOUR CLAIM WAS RETURNED TO YOU UNDER DATE OF DECEMBER 10.

B-123881, JUL. 7, 1955

TO MR. ARTHUR L. PARRIS:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED DECEMBER 17, 1954, AND TO YOUR SUBSEQUENT INQUIRIES CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF AN AMOUNT FORFEITED BY COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE APPROVED NOVEMBER 12, 1917.

OUR RECORDS SHOW THAT A CLAIM WHICH YOU SUBMITTED IN 1919 FOR THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AUDITOR FOR THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND DISALLOWED BY HIS SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 15, 1920, ON THE BASIS OF A REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, DATED MARCH 31, 1920, AS FOLLOWS:

"ON 11 NOVEMBER, 1917, ARTHUR L. PARRIS, SEAMAN, U.S. NAVY, WAS SENTENCED BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL ON BOARD THE U.S.S. STANDARD ARROW TO LOSE PAY AMOUNTING TO $122.70. ON 11 NOVEMBER, 1917, THE CONVENING AUTHORITY, WHO WAS THE SENIOR OFFICER PRESENT, APPROVED THE PROCEEDINGS, FINDING AND SENTENCE. THE LOSS OF PAY WAS NOT REMITTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4893, NAVAL INSTRUCTIONS, 1913.'

A SUBSEQUENT CLAIM FOR THE COURT-MARTIAL FORFEITURE WAS RECEIVED FROM YOU IN 1925. BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 17, 1925, YOU WERE AGAIN INFORMED OF THE REASON WHY YOUR CLAIM COULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT A FURTHER LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1954, WAS RECEIVED HERE FROM YOU ON NOVEMBER 24, 1954, BY REFERENCE FROM THE NAVY DEPARTMENT, MAKING CLAIM FOR THE SAME ITEM. DUE TO INADVERTENCE, THAT LETTER WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOUR PRIOR CLAIMS. AS A RESULT, YOUR CLAIM WAS RETURNED TO YOU UNDER DATE OF DECEMBER 10, 1954, CITING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061, WHICH, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, BARS CONSIDERATION OF ANY CLAIM NOT RECEIVED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WITHIN TEN FULL YEARS AFTER THE DATE SUCH CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED.

A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 26, 1954, FROM THE BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DISCHARGED NAVAL PERSONNEL RECORDS BRANCH, NAVAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT CENTER, GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK, WAS RECEIVED HERE WITH YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 24, 1954, REPORTING AS FOLLOWS:

"2. RECORDS SHOW PARRIS WAS CONVICTED BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL ON THE CHARGES OF ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE FOR 3 HOURS AND RETURNING DRUNK AND DISORDERLY AND WAS SENTENCED TO LOSE $122.70 OF HIS PAY AND REDUCED TO THE RATING OF SEAMAN SECOND CLASS. THE PROCEEDINGS, FINDING AND SENTENCE WERE APPROVED ON 12 NOVEMBER 1917, BUT THE LOSS OF PAY WAS REMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC. I-4893, NAVY INSTRUCTIONS--- 1913. HE WAS DISCHARGED ON 11 FEBRUARY 1919 WITH A GOOD DISCHARGE, UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, BY REASON OF OWN REQUEST.'

IT WAS NOT UNTIL RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 17, 1954, CALLING ATTENTION TO YOUR EARLIER CLAIMS, THAT THE CLAIMS WERE ASSOCIATED. EXAMINING THE FILE THERE WAS NOTED THE DISCREPANCY IN THE REPORTS OF MARCH 31, 1920, AND OCTOBER 26, 1954, AS QUOTED ABOVE. WE REQUESTED THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL TO VERIFY THE LAST REPORT AND IN HIS LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1955, FORWARDING A COPY OF "EXTRACT FROM SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL APPROVED 11 NOVEMBER 1917 " AND A COPY OF "JAG LTR OF 31 MAR. 1920," IT WAS STATED:

"1. A REPORT FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL DISCLOSES THAT THE LOSS OF PAY ADJUDGED BY SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL APPROVED 11 NOVEMBER 1917 IN THE CASE OF THE SUBJECT PERSON WAS NOT REMITTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4893, NAVAL INSTRUCTIONS, 1913.'

THE PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF THE "EXTRACT FROM SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL APPROVED 11 NOVEMBER 1917" TRANSMITTED WITH THE LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1955, CONTAINS NO NOTATION TO INDICATE REMISSION OF THE LOSS OF PAY ADJUDGED.

ANOTHER REPORT DATED APRIL 28, 1955, FROM THE NAVAL RECORDS MANAGEMENT CENTER, BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, REFERS TO THE LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1955, CITED ABOVE, AND STATES:

"1. THE SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL APPROVED 11 NOVEMBER 1917 AS RECORDED IN THE SUBJECT PERSON'S NAVAL RECORD INDICATED THAT THE LOSS OF PAY ADJUDGED IN HIS CASE WAS REMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION I-4893, NAVY INSTRUCTIONS--- 1913. A FURTHER INVESTIGATION HOWEVER, WAS MADE IN THIS CONNECTION, AND A REPORT WHICH INCLUDED AN EXTRACT FROM THE SUMMARY COURT- MARTIAL APPROVED 11 NOVEMBER 1917 AND A COPY OF A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE AUDITOR FOR THE NAVY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL INDICATING THAT THE LOSS OF PAY ADJUDGED BY THE COURT MARTIAL WAS NOT REMITTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4893, NAVY INSTRUCTIONS--- 1913.

"2. BASED UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE NAVY, A SUPERSEDING REPORT WAS FORWARDED YOUR OFFICE BY REFERENCE (B) (LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1955), AND ALL PREVIOUS REPORTS FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH CASE WERE CANCELLED.'

ARTICLE 4893, NAVAL INSTRUCTIONS, 1913, PROVIDED THAT A SENTENCE OF A DECK COURT OR COURT-MARTIAL INVOLVING LESS OF PAY, WHEN REMITTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THAT ARTICLE, WOULD BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH IN THE ARTICLE. UNDER SUCH INSTRUCTIONS AN ENLISTED MAN WHO RECEIVED AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE WAS ENTITLED TO THE AMOUNT OF PAY DEDUCTED PURSUANT TO SENTENCE OF A COURT-MARTIAL, WHICH HAD BEEN CONDITIONALLY REMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARTICLE. ENLISTED MEN WHO RECEIVED CERTAIN OTHER TYPES OF DISCHARGES WERE ENTITLED TO ONE-HALF OF THE AMOUNT DEDUCTED UNDER A COURT-MARTIAL SENTENCE THAT HAD BEEN CONDITIONALLY SO REMITTED.

IN VIEW OF THE OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 4893, QUOTED, IT WILL BE SEEN THAT, SINCE THE LOSS OF PAY WHICH WAS ADJUDGED BY THE SUMMARY COURT-MARTIAL OF NOVEMBER 11, 1917, WAS NOT IN FACT REMITTED--- EITHER CONDITIONALLY OR OTHERWISE--- THERE WAS NO AUTHORITY FOR REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT UPON YOUR DISCHARGE FROM THE SERVICE ON FEBRUARY 11, 1919, WITH A GOOD DISCHARGE, UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS, AT YOUR OWN REQUEST.

ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 15, 1920, DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE FORFEITURE WAS NOT REMITTED SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 4893, NAVAL INSTRUCTIONS, 1913, SUCH ACTION WAS CORRECT.