B-136517, JUL. 31, 1958

B-136517: Jul 31, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

USN: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 19. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE YOUR REENLISTMENT BONUS HAD BEEN INCORRECTLY COMPUTED. YOU STATE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND FULLY THE REASON WHY YOUR BONUS WAS REDUCED. YOU SAY THAT IF YOU HAD KNOWN YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-1 WHEN YOU REENLISTED YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO. DISCHARGE PAPERS AND REENLISTMENT PAPERS WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN INDICATE THAT YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-2. YOU ALSO EXPRESS THE VIEW THAT YOU WERE REENLISTED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE. WHILE IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT A DISBURSING OFFICER MAY HAVE MISINFORMED YOU. NAVY FINANCE CENTER YOU WERE REDUCED IN RATING FROM PAY GRADE E-2 TO PAY GRADE E-1 PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL COURT MARTIAL SENTENCE APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 10.

B-136517, JUL. 31, 1958

TO JAMES A. LAYMAN, 426 88 83, AN, USN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED MAY 19, 1958, RELATIVE TO OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 30, 1958, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF CHECK AGE FOR OVERPAYMENT OF REENLISTMENT BONUS.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE YOUR REENLISTMENT BONUS HAD BEEN INCORRECTLY COMPUTED, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PAY RECORDS AS WELL AS STATEMENTS IN THE RECORD BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE U.S. NAVY FINANCE CENTER, ON THE BASIS OF PAY GRADE E-2 INSTEAD OF PAY GRADE E 1, YOUR PAY GRADE AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE. IN YOUR LETTER OF MAY 19, 1958, YOU STATE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND FULLY THE REASON WHY YOUR BONUS WAS REDUCED. HOWEVER, YOU SAY THAT IF YOU HAD KNOWN YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-1 WHEN YOU REENLISTED YOU WOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO, AND THAT ALL RECORDS, DISCHARGE PAPERS AND REENLISTMENT PAPERS WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN INDICATE THAT YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-2. YOU FURTHER SAY THAT A DISBURSING OFFICER AT THE RECEIVING STATION IN LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TOLD YOU THAT THE REENLISTMENT BONUS WOULD BE COMPUTED ON PAY GRADE E 2. IN THE LETTER OF MAY 19, 1958, YOU ALSO EXPRESS THE VIEW THAT YOU WERE REENLISTED UNDER FALSE PRETENSES AND SHOULD BE AUTHORIZED AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE.

WHILE IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT A DISBURSING OFFICER MAY HAVE MISINFORMED YOU, HIS STATEMENTS CAN NOT FORM THE LEGAL BASIS FOR PAYMENTS TO YOU IN EXCESS OF THOSE AUTHORIZED BY LAW. ACCORDING TO THE PAY RECORDS AS WELL AS STATEMENTS BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE U.S. NAVY FINANCE CENTER YOU WERE REDUCED IN RATING FROM PAY GRADE E-2 TO PAY GRADE E-1 PURSUANT TO A SPECIAL COURT MARTIAL SENTENCE APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 10, 1954. YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-1 ON NOVEMBER 18, 1954, THE DATE OF YOUR DISCHARGE, AND LESS THAN 90 DAYS LATER (FEBRUARY 14, 1955), YOU REENLISTED IN PAY GRADE E -2. SECTION 208 OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, AS ADDED BY THE ACT OF JULY 16, 1954, 37 U.S.C. 239, PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORM SERVICES WHO REENLISTS IS ENTITLED TO A REENLISTMENT BONUS, UNDER THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS, COMPUTED ACCORDING TO A TABLE THERE SET FORTH ON THE BASIS OF THE MONTHLY BASIC PAY (IN WHOLE OR IN PART) TO WHICH THE MEMBER WAS ENTITLED AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE. AT THE TIME OF DISCHARGE YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-1. HENCE, YOUR REENLISTMENT BONUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH GRADE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF PAY GRADE E-2 THE GRADE IN WHICH YOU WERE REENLISTED.

SINCE YOU HAVE OFFERED NO EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE RECORD BEFORE US THAT YOU WERE IN PAY GRADE E-1 AT DATE OF DISCHARGE, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, TO REFUND THE AMOUNT INVOLVED AND THE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 30, 1958, IS SUSTAINED. REGARDING YOUR INQUIRY AS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT THE DISCHARGE OF ENLISTED MEMBERS OF THE NAVAL SERVICE IS A MATTER UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT ANY INQUIRY IN THAT RESPECT BE ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY.