B-125568, NOV. 30, 1955

B-125568: Nov 30, 1955

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

JR.: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 4. IN WHICH A COMPLETE EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED AS TO THE REASONS WE COULD NOT GIVE FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION TO YOUR CLAIM. NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO YOUR SEPARATION ON JANUARY 3. YOU WERE SERVING AS A RESERVE OFFICER IN CATEGORY III WHICH EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 31. THAT YOU WERE. YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT SENATOR BRICKER WAS ADVISED IN SUCH LETTER THAT YOUR CLAIM IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF ELLIOTT H. WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN DECISION OF JULY 18. A COPY OF WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE SENATOR. SINCE YOU MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT DECISION. A COPY IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION. WHILE YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS A MAJOR IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVERTING TO YOUR REGULAR ARMY STATUS AS CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER.

B-125568, NOV. 30, 1955

TO CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER WALTER R. BLACK, JR.:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 4, 1955, WITH ENCLOSURES, REGARDING YOUR CLAIM FOR LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR 60 DAYS' ACCRUED UNUSED LEAVE AS OF JANUARY 3, 1955, COMPUTED AT THE RATE APPLICABLE TO A MAJOR WITH OVER 12 YEARS' SERVICE. YOU ENCLOSE A LETTER DATED OCTOBER 6, 1955, B-125568, TO THE HONORABLE JOHN W. BRICKER, UNITED STATES SENATE, IN WHICH A COMPLETE EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED AS TO THE REASONS WE COULD NOT GIVE FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION TO YOUR CLAIM.

RESPECTING YOUR CONTENTION THAT IN THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 6, 1955, NO CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO YOUR SEPARATION ON JANUARY 3, 1955, YOU WERE SERVING AS A RESERVE OFFICER IN CATEGORY III WHICH EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 31, 1954, AND THAT YOU WERE, THEREFORE, SEPARATED BY REASON OF EXPIRATION OF THE CATEGORY, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE FACT THAT SENATOR BRICKER WAS ADVISED IN SUCH LETTER THAT YOUR CLAIM IS SIMILAR TO THE CASE OF ELLIOTT H. DEJARNETT, III, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED IN DECISION OF JULY 18, 1955, B-122794, A COPY OF WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE SENATOR. SINCE YOU MAY NOT HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT DECISION, A COPY IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION. WHILE YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS A MAJOR IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVERTING TO YOUR REGULAR ARMY STATUS AS CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER, NEVERTHELESS YOU DID REVERT TO SUCH STATUS UPON RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AS AN OFFICER IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES AND, HENCE, YOUR SERVICE WAS CONTINUOUS. YOUR PRESENT LETTER FURNISHES NO MATERIAL INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FULLY CONSIDERED AND, ACCORDINGLY, AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR CHANGING THE CONCLUSION PREVIOUSLY REACHED IN THE MATTER.

REGARDING THE STATEMENT IN YOUR LETTER THAT MR. CORNETT AND MR. JOHN WHEAT WERE PAID A LUMP SUM FOR THEIR LEAVE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE DISCLOSED IN YOUR CLAIM, YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT ACTION HAS BEEN INITIATED TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED IN THEIR CASES WERE IDENTICAL WITH YOURS AND TO TAKE SUCH ACTION AS THE FINDINGS MAY INDICATE TO BE APPROPRIATE.

THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 6, 1955, ADDRESSED TO SENATOR BRICKER AND OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 9, 1955, ARE RETURNED.