B-142183, APR. 8, 1960

B-142183: Apr 8, 1960

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

YOU REQUEST AN ADVANCE DECISION UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER A VALID ELECTION WAS MADE OF OPTIONS 3 AND 4 AT ONE-HALF OF REDUCED RETIRED PAY. THE CORRECTED APPLICATION FILED AFTER THAT DATE IS BASICALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. HE WAS FURNISHED ANOTHER APPLICATION WHICH HE EXECUTED ON JANUARY 12. IT REPRESENTED AN ELECTION NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW AND HENCE WAS VOID AND OF NO EFFECT. THE SECOND APPLICATION THUS WAS AN ORIGINAL ELECTION (34 COMP. GEN. 555) AND SINCE IT WAS FILED TOO LATE UNDER THE LAW. YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.

B-142183, APR. 8, 1960

TO R. A. WILSON, DISBURSING OFFICER, SPECIAL PAYMENTS DEPARTMENT, U.S. NAVY FINANCE CENTER:

ON MARCH 2, 1960, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE NAVY TRANSMITTED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 16, 1959, REFERENCE XR:HWM:MB 7220, SUBMISSION NO. DO-N-483. YOU REQUEST AN ADVANCE DECISION UPON THE QUESTION WHETHER A VALID ELECTION WAS MADE OF OPTIONS 3 AND 4 AT ONE-HALF OF REDUCED RETIRED PAY, ON THE BASIS THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORS BENEFITS, TRANSMITTED PRIOR TO THE STATUTORY DEADLINE DATE OF NOVEMBER 1, 1954, EXPRESSED AN INTENT TO OBTAIN BENEFITS UNDER THE UNIFORMED SERVICES CONTINGENCY OPTION ACT OF 1953, 37 U.S.C. 371-381 (SUPP. I, 1952 ED.), FOR THE APPLICANT'S FAMILY, AND THE CORRECTED APPLICATION FILED AFTER THAT DATE IS BASICALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE APPLICANT FILED HIS ELECTION IN OCTOBER, 1954. ON DECEMBER 21, 1954, AFTER THE DEADLINE DATE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE NOTIFIED THE APPLICANT THAT A DISCREPANCY HAD BEEN NOTED ON HIS ELECTION. HE HAD INCLUDED OPTION 1 WITH OPTIONS 3 AND 4, DESIGNATING THE RATE FACTOR OF ONE-HALF FOR EACH OPTION--- 1 AND 3--- WHICH CAUSED THE ELECTION TO EXCEED THE 50 PER CENT PERMITTED BY LAW. HE WAS FURNISHED ANOTHER APPLICATION WHICH HE EXECUTED ON JANUARY 12, 1955, ELECTING OPTIONS 3 AND 4 AT THE MAXIMUM STATUTORY RATE.

SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FILED OCTOBER 12, 1954, INVOLVED A COMBINATION OF OPTIONS 1 AND 3, IT REPRESENTED AN ELECTION NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LAW AND HENCE WAS VOID AND OF NO EFFECT. B 123945, SEPTEMBER 29, 1955. THE SECOND APPLICATION THUS WAS AN ORIGINAL ELECTION (34 COMP. GEN. 555) AND SINCE IT WAS FILED TOO LATE UNDER THE LAW, NO RIGHTS ACCRUED ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE MEMBER. YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.