B-125552, AUG. 9, 1956
Highlights
TO THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL: REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED APRIL 12. 400 YEN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM HIM WHILE SERVING IN JAPAN AS SERGEANT. IT WAS HELD IN THAT DECISION THAT FAVORABLE ACTION COULD NOT BE TAKEN ON HIS CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF OFFICIAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT THE SUM OF $1. 815 WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTED FROM HIM AND DEPOSITED AS A COLLECTION ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS. THE CLAIMANT WAS ADVISED. HENCE HIS CLAIM WAS FORWARDED TO THE BRANCH OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE. STATES: "I AM INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE CLAIM IS WITHIN SUBPARAGRAPH 3B (5).
B-125552, AUG. 9, 1956
TO THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER DATED APRIL 12, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE ACTING CHIEF, CLAIMS DIVISION (FILE REFERENCE JAGD/D-54-7095 PATTERSON, LEONARD G.), CONCERNING THE CLAIM OF LEONARD G. PATTERSON FOR $1,815 REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF 653,400 YEN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FROM HIM WHILE SERVING IN JAPAN AS SERGEANT, FIRST CLASS, UNITED STATES ARMY.
THE LETTER REFERS TO OUR DECISION DATED DECEMBER 2, 1955, B-125552, TO SERGEANT PATTERSON. IT WAS HELD IN THAT DECISION THAT FAVORABLE ACTION COULD NOT BE TAKEN ON HIS CLAIM IN THE ABSENCE OF OFFICIAL EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THAT THE SUM OF $1,815 WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTED FROM HIM AND DEPOSITED AS A COLLECTION ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS. THE CLAIMANT WAS ADVISED, HOWEVER, THAT HIS CLAIM MIGHT FALL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE MILITARY PERSONNEL CLAIMS ACT OF 1945, 59 STAT. 225, AS AMENDED, 31 U.S.C. 222 (C), AND HENCE HIS CLAIM WAS FORWARDED TO THE BRANCH OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SUCH ACTION AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE.
THE ACTING CHIEF, CLAIMS DIVISION, IN HIS LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1956, STATES:
"I AM INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONCLUSION EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER THAT THE CLAIM IS WITHIN SUBPARAGRAPH 3B (5), AR 25-100, IS SOUND, ALTHOUGH I MUST POINT OUT THAT CAPTAIN JENKINS' OFFICIAL DUTIES DID NOT EXTEND TO THE CONVERSION OF YEN INTO DOLLARS. DESPITE MY OPINION IN THIS REGARD, I CANNOT ACT ON THE CLAIM BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION MADE BY MY PREDECESSOR IS FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE. AS INDICATED ABOVE, I CAN DO NOTHING EXCEPT DISAPPROVE THE PRESENT CLAIM. I AM RELUCTANT TO DO SO WITHOUT PRESENTING THE FACTS TO YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE SETTLEMENT OF THE IM.'
AMONG THE PAPERS SUBMITTED WITH THE LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1956, IS DA FORM 1089 EXECUTED BY SERGEANT PATTERSON ON JANUARY 23, 1956, MAKING CLAIM TO THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE SUM OF $1,815 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARMY REGULATIONS 25-100. IN THAT CLAIM SERGEANT PATTERSON REFERS TO OUR DECISION TO HIM DATED DECEMBER 2, 1955, BUT HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION TAKEN IN THAT DECISION. ON THE PRESENT RECORD THERE IS NO BASIS FOR US TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THE MATTER.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PAPERS SUBMITTED WITH THE LETTER OF APRIL 12, 1956, ARE RETURNED.