B-135343, APR. 11, 1958

B-135343: Apr 11, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ANNA MISHANI: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 7. THAT YOU BELIEVE A DUPLICATE COLLECTION THEREOF WAS MADE ON OUR SETTLEMENT NO. 1796865 DATED DECEMBER 6. THE COLLECTION ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED ON THE BASIS OF YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 22. "A DUPLICATE COPY OF THE FORM AFC 5-445 DOES NOT SHOW THE REMARK "THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW PAID IN FULL.'" FAMILY ALLOWANCE RECORDS AVAILABLE TO US INDICATE THAT THE FORM 5 445 UPON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR SURMISE THAT YOU REPAID THE OVERPAYMENT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE WAS PREPARED DECEMBER 12. IN WHICH YOU STATE THAT YOU "WILL SEND THE CHECK AS SOON AS I GET THE MONEY TOGETHER.'. FROM SETTLEMENTS DIVISION TO YOU REQUESTED THAT YOU INFORM THEM OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OVERPAYMENT OF $150 WAS LIQUIDATED AS OF DECEMBER 1947.

B-135343, APR. 11, 1958

TO MRS. ANNA MISHANI:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 7, 1957, SUGGESTING THAT A COLLECTION OF $150 HAD BEEN MADE FROM YOU AS INDICATED BY A COPY OF AFC FORM 5-445 DATED DECEMBER 12, 1947, WHICH YOU TRANSMITTED HERE, AND THAT YOU BELIEVE A DUPLICATE COLLECTION THEREOF WAS MADE ON OUR SETTLEMENT NO. 1796865 DATED DECEMBER 6, 1949, WHICH ALLOWED THE ARREARS OF PAY DUE IN THE CASE OF YOUR FORMER HUSBAND TO YOUR DAUGHTER, MRS. EVA MISHANI PETRY (NOW MRS. CARL J. CRAMER). ALSO, THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 21, 1957, WRITTEN BY MRS. CRAMER IN YOUR BEHALF IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 7, 1957, TO YOU BY THE SETTLEMENTS DIVISION, FINANCE CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, INDIANAPOLIS 49, INDIANA.

A REPORT TO US FROM SETTLEMENTS OPERATIONS, FINANCE CENTER, U.S. ARMY, DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1958, TO WHICH WE HAD REFERRED A COPY OF THE FORM 5-445 YOU SENT TO US, STATES:

"COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF THE FILE PERTAINING TO JOSEPH H. MISHANI FAILED TO DISCLOSE COLLECTION IN EXCESS OF $150 FOR THE OVERPAYMENT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE. THE COLLECTION ACCOUNT WAS CLOSED ON THE BASIS OF YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 22, 1950 ARMY-Z 163735-PMR.

"A DUPLICATE COPY OF THE FORM AFC 5-445 DOES NOT SHOW THE REMARK "THIS ACCOUNT IS NOW PAID IN FULL.'"

FAMILY ALLOWANCE RECORDS AVAILABLE TO US INDICATE THAT THE FORM 5 445 UPON WHICH YOU BASE YOUR SURMISE THAT YOU REPAID THE OVERPAYMENT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE WAS PREPARED DECEMBER 12, 1947, AS A CANCELLATION OF DUPLICATE COLLECTION ACCOUNT. ALSO, THOSE RECORDS CONTAIN A LETTER FROM YOU UNDER DATE OF FEBRUARY 22, 1949, IN WHICH YOU STATE THAT YOU "WILL SEND THE CHECK AS SOON AS I GET THE MONEY TOGETHER.'

IN LETTER OF NOVEMBER 7, 1957, FROM SETTLEMENTS DIVISION TO YOU REQUESTED THAT YOU INFORM THEM OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THE OVERPAYMENT OF $150 WAS LIQUIDATED AS OF DECEMBER 1947, THAT IS, WHETHER PAID BY MONTHLY PAYMENTS, LUMP SUM PAYMENT, CASH, MONEY ORDER OR CHECK, AND DATE OF PAYMENT OR PAYMENTS. REPLY WAS MADE BY YOUR DAUGHTER, MRS. CRAMER, UNDER DATE OF NOVEMBER 21, 1957, WHICH IS SO VAGUE AND INDEFINITE AS TO BE, AT LEAST, UNCONVINCING THAT ANY PAYMENTS WHATEVER WERE MADE--- PARTICULARLY IN THE FACE OF THE REPORT OF FEBRUARY 10, 1958, FROM SETTLEMENTS OPERATIONS THAT THE RECORDS OF THE FINANCE CENTER, U.S. ARMY, FAIL TO SHOW ANY COLLECTIONS FROM YOU AND YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 22, 1949, STATING THAT YOU WOULD SEND A CHECK IN PAYMENT OF THIS INDEBTEDNESS. THEREFORE, SINCE IT IS THE UNBROKEN RULE OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN CASES INVOLVING DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT (SEE 16 COMP. GEN. 325), WE FIND NO BASIS FOR CONCLUDING THAT YOU HAVE REFUNDED THE SUM OF $150 OR THAT COLLECTION OF THAT AMOUNT HAS BEEN MADE BY ANY OTHER MEANS THAN BY SET-OFF IN THE SETTLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 6, 1949, REFERRED TO ABOVE.

ON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT DUPLICATE COLLECTION OF $150 HAS BEEN EFFECTED. ACCORDINGLY, YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND MAY NOT BE ALLOWED.