B-155746, APR. 19, 1965

B-155746: Apr 19, 1965

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

JR.: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27. THE RECORDS FURNISHED US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT DUE YOUR HUSBAND AS PAY FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1946 WAS COVERED BY CHECK NO. 44. THAT THE AMOUNT DUE HIM AS PAY FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1946 WAS COVERED BY CHECK NO. 55. THIS INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED YOUR HUSBAND IN THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 14. ADVISED YOU THAT SINCE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAD REPORTED THAT THE CHECKS IN QUESTION WERE NOT ON THEIR OUTSTANDING LIST. IT APPEARED (1) THAT SUCH CHECKS WERE NEGOTIATED IN DUE COURSE AND PAID BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND (2) THAT THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DESTROYED. THAT WE WERE REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO ADVISE US WHETHER THEY NOW HAVE ANY RECORDS THAT SHOW WHAT DISPOSITION WAS MADE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH CHECKS.

B-155746, APR. 19, 1965

TO MRS. JOHN H. TURNER, JR.:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1964, WRITTEN IN BEHALF OF YOUR HUSBAND, JOHN H. TURNER, JR., IN WHICH YOU STATED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE THE CHECKS COVERING HIS ARMY PAY FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1946.

THE RECORDS FURNISHED US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT DUE YOUR HUSBAND AS PAY FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1946 WAS COVERED BY CHECK NO. 44,685, IN THE AMOUNT OF $37.16, ISSUED IN HIS FAVOR BY W. W. COFFEY, SYMBOL NO. 213-652, AND THAT THE AMOUNT DUE HIM AS PAY FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1946 WAS COVERED BY CHECK NO. 55, 438, IN THE AMOUNT OF $26.60, ISSUED IN HIS FAVOR BY THE SAME DISBURSING OFFICER. THIS INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED YOUR HUSBAND IN THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1949, WHICH DISALLOWED HIS CLAIM FOR ARREARS OF PAY. OUR CLAIMS DIVISION ALSO FURNISHED THIS INFORMATION TO YOU IN LETTER OF NOVEMBER 12, 1964, AND, IN EFFECT, ADVISED YOU THAT SINCE THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAD REPORTED THAT THE CHECKS IN QUESTION WERE NOT ON THEIR OUTSTANDING LIST, IT APPEARED (1) THAT SUCH CHECKS WERE NEGOTIATED IN DUE COURSE AND PAID BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES AND (2) THAT THEY WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DESTROYED, AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR AGE.

IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 27, 1964, YOU INSISTED THAT YOUR HUSBAND DID NOT RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED CHECKS, AND AFTER CAREFULLY REEXAMINING ALL THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN OUR FILE RELATING TO YOUR HUSBAND'S CASE, WE INFORMED YOU IN OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 3, 1965, B-155746, THAT WE WERE REQUESTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO ADVISE US WHETHER THEY NOW HAVE ANY RECORDS THAT SHOW WHAT DISPOSITION WAS MADE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH CHECKS. WE NOW HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY A REPORT DATED MARCH 17, 1965, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THAT THEY HAVE NO RECORDS SHOWING WHAT DISPOSITION WAS MADE OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE CHECKS. WE KNOW OF NO OTHER SOURCE FROM WHICH THIS INFORMATION MIGHT BE OBTAINED.

YOU ARE ADVISED, THEREFORE, THAT, CONSIDERING ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION, WE MAY NOT CONCLUDE THAT YOUR HUSBAND DID NOT RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS OF THE TWO CHECKS DESCRIBED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR FAVORABLE ACTION ON HIS CLAIM.