B-169765, JUN. 26, 1970

B-169765: Jun 26, 1970

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

OUR FILE SHOWS THAT A PREVIOUS CLAIM BY YOU FOR MUSTERING-OUT PAY IN THIS CASE WAS THE SUBJECT OF LETTERS TO YOU BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED SEPTEMBER 27. IN THOSE LETTERS YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON SEPTEMBER 11. THE DATE YOUR HUSBAND WAS DISCHARGED. WE WERE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM. YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 30. THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT. MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE SCOUTS WHO HAVE ENLISTED IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6. SUCH PAYMENTS WERE AUTHORIZED AT THE RATE OF ONE PHILIPPINE PESO FOR EACH DOLLAR AUTHORIZED BY THE MUSTERING-OUT PAY ACT OF 1944.

B-169765, JUN. 26, 1970

TO MRS. EUPROCINA ESTIAGA VDA. DE CELIZ:

YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 4, 1969, RECEIVED HERE FROM THE FINANCE CENTER, U. S. ARMY, PRESENTS A CLAIM FOR MUSTERING-OUT PAY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 ON BEHALF OF YOUR LATE HUSBAND, MAMERTO E. CELIZ, INCIDENT TO HIS DISCHARGE AS A MEMBER OF THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES ON MARCH 2, 1946.

OUR FILE SHOWS THAT A PREVIOUS CLAIM BY YOU FOR MUSTERING-OUT PAY IN THIS CASE WAS THE SUBJECT OF LETTERS TO YOU BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED SEPTEMBER 27, 1967, AND JANUARY 30, 1968. IN THOSE LETTERS YOU WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON SEPTEMBER 11, 1967, AND SINCE THE CLAIM ACCRUED ON MARCH 2, 1946, THE DATE YOUR HUSBAND WAS DISCHARGED, WE WERE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM, CITING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061. THAT ACT BARS CONSIDERATION OF ANY CLAIM NOT RECEIVED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WITHIN 10 FULL YEARS AFTER THE DATE SUCH CLAIM ACCRUED. YOU WERE ADVISED IN THE LETTER OF JANUARY 30, 1968, THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THAT ACT, THIS OFFICE MAY MAKE NO EXCEPTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE.

IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU CITE PARAGRAPHS 311-322 OF TN502(TM14-502) AND ACT NO. 263 OF THE 88TH CONGRESS, DATED JANUARY 9, 1963, AND APPROVED SEPTEMBER 30, 1965, AS AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF MUSTERING OUT PAY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR THE SERVICE PERFORMED BY YOUR LATE HUSBAND AS A PHILIPPINE SCOUT IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES.

OF THE AUTHORITIES CITED BY YOU ONLY PARAGRAPH 314 OF TECHNICAL MANUAL 14 -502, DATED AUGUST 1946, PERTAINS TO THE RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE SCOUTS TO MUSTERING-OUT PAY. IT PROVIDES THAT EFFECTIVE MAY 27, 1946, MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE SCOUTS WHO HAVE ENLISTED IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1945, 59 STAT. 543, WOULD BE PAID MUSTERING-OUT PAY UPON DISCHARGE.

SUCH PAYMENTS WERE AUTHORIZED AT THE RATE OF ONE PHILIPPINE PESO FOR EACH DOLLAR AUTHORIZED BY THE MUSTERING-OUT PAY ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 8, AS AMENDED, WHICH ACT PROVIDES FOR A MAXIMUM PAYMENT OF $300. THEREFORE, THE MAXIMUM WHICH WOULD BE DUE A PHILIPPINE SCOUT WHO HAD ENLISTED IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1945, WOULD BE 300 PESOS. HOWEVER, SINCE YOUR HUSBAND WAS NOT ENLISTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 1945, AND WAS DISCHARGED ON MARCH 2, 1946, HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE MUSTERING -OUT PAY CITED IN THE MANUAL.

WE ARE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE "ACT 263" TO WHICH YOU REFER. NEITHER PUBLIC LAW 88-263 (WHICH WAS APPROVED ON JANUARY 31, 1964) NOR ANY LAW ENACTED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1965, IN ANY WAY RELATES TO MUSTERING-OUT PAY AND NO LAW WAS ENACTED OR APPROVED ON JANUARY 9, 1963. WE DO NOT KNOW OF ANY LAW WHICH AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF MUSTERING-OUT PAY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000.

AS YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED, THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, PRECLUDES THIS OFFICE FROM CONSIDERING A CLAIM WHICH IS FIRST RECEIVED HERE MORE THAN 10 FULL YEARS AFTER THE DATE SUCH CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED. MAY MAKE NO EXCEPTIONS TO ITS PROVISIONS. SINCE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM IS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED BY THE 1940 BARRING ACT, THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IS SUSTAINED.