B-159941, SEP. 9, 1966

B-159941: Sep 9, 1966

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR CONSIDERATION. YOU WERE ADVISED IN SETTLEMENTS FROM OUR OFFICE DATED OCTOBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 18. THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION BY OUR OFFICE INASMUCH AS MORE THAN TEN FULL YEARS HAD ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND THE DATE YOUR CLAIM FIRST WAS RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE. WE MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM HAD BEEN PROPERLY FILED THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR PERSONNEL FOLDER TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAD LEAVE PAY DUE YOU. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REPEAT YOUR CLAIM AND REQUEST RECONSIDERATION APPARENTLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONCERNING WHICH YOU WERE INFORMED IN OUR PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS. IS NOT A MERE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BUT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO OUR AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER SUCH DELAYED CLAIMS.

B-159941, SEP. 9, 1966

TO MRS. ROSA L. VALES:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 18, 1966, ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR CONSIDERATION. THE LETTER CONCERNS YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF ACCRUED LEAVE ALLEGED TO BE DUE YOU, BUT NOT TAKEN, DURING YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN THE PHILIPPINES DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 1945 TO JANUARY 1949.

YOU WERE ADVISED IN SETTLEMENTS FROM OUR OFFICE DATED OCTOBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 18, 1960, PB-Z-2094776-LFL, THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION BY OUR OFFICE INASMUCH AS MORE THAN TEN FULL YEARS HAD ELAPSED BETWEEN THE DATE THE CLAIM ACCRUED AND THE DATE YOUR CLAIM FIRST WAS RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE. WE MIGHT ALSO ADD THAT EVEN IF YOUR CLAIM HAD BEEN PROPERLY FILED THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR PERSONNEL FOLDER TO INDICATE THAT YOU HAD LEAVE PAY DUE YOU.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REPEAT YOUR CLAIM AND REQUEST RECONSIDERATION APPARENTLY WITHOUT REGARD TO THE TEN-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS CONCERNING WHICH YOU WERE INFORMED IN OUR PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS. THAT LIMITATION, UPON CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS BY OUR OFFICE, IS NOT A MERE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BUT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO OUR AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER SUCH DELAYED CLAIMS. SEE BARTLESVILLE ZINC COMPANY V. MELLON, 56 F.2D 154, AND CARPENTER V. UNITED STATES, 56 F.2D 828. CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OR TO EXTEND THE TIME PROVIDED THEREIN. SEE 25 COMP. GEN. 670; 32 ID. 267.

WE REGRET, THEREFORE, THAT WE MAY NOT FURTHER CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM.