B-171514, JAN 21, 1971
Highlights
JUANA VDA DE CARIZAL: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3. YOUR LETTER WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR REPLY. YOUR CLAIM WAS ORIGINALLY DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN A SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 27. THIS MATTER WAS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF A LETTER FROM OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED AUGUST 1. IN THAT LETTER YOU WERE ADVISED OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9. WHICH BAR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM BY THIS OFFICE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE WITHIN THE 10-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN THAT ACT. CONCERNING YOUR APPARENT BELIEF THAT YOUR HUSBAND WAS ENTITLED TO MUSTERING-OUT PAY "UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. " YOU ARE ADVISED THAT NEITHER PUBLIC LAW 88-263 (WHICH WAS APPROVED JANUARY 31.
B-171514, JAN 21, 1971
MUSTERING-OUT PAY - WIDOW DENIAL OF CLAIM FOR MUSTERING-OUT PAY AS WIDOW OF MARCELINO F. CARIZAL BELIEVED DUE INCIDENT TO HIS DISCHARGE FROM MILITARY SERVICE IN 1942 ON BASIS THAT CLAIM MUST BE ASSERTED WITHIN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE IT ACCRUED OR BE BARRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 31 U.S.C. 71A.
TO MRS. JUANA VDA DE CARIZAL:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1969, ADDRESSED TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY FINANCE CENTER, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR MUSTERING-OUT PAY AS WIDOW OF MARCELINO F. CARIZAL, BELIEVED DUE INCIDENT TO HIS DISCHARGE FROM MILITARY SERVICE IN 1942. YOUR LETTER WAS FORWARDED TO OUR OFFICE FOR REPLY.
YOUR CLAIM WAS ORIGINALLY DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN A SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1968. THIS MATTER WAS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF A LETTER FROM OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED AUGUST 1, 1969, IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 6, 1969, CLAIMING MUSTERING-OUT PAY INCIDENT TO YOUR HUSBAND'S RETIREMENT IN 1949. IN THAT LETTER YOU WERE ADVISED OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, CH. 788, 54 STAT. 1061, 31 U.S.C. 71A, WHICH BAR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM BY THIS OFFICE DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE WITHIN THE 10-YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN THAT ACT.
CONCERNING YOUR APPARENT BELIEF THAT YOUR HUSBAND WAS ENTITLED TO MUSTERING-OUT PAY "UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT. NO. 263 OF THE 88TH CONGRESS, DATED 9 JANUARY 1963 AND APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1965," YOU ARE ADVISED THAT NEITHER PUBLIC LAW 88-263 (WHICH WAS APPROVED JANUARY 31, 1964, AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSTERING-OUT PAY), NOR ANY OTHER LAW OF WHICH WE ARE AWARE, AUTHORIZES THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM. ANY RIGHT YOUR HUSBAND MAY HAVE HAD TO MUSTERING-OUT PAY ACCRUED UNDER THE MUSTERING-OUT PAYMENT ACT OF 1944, CH. 9, 58 STAT. 8, AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. 691 ET SEQ. (1946 ED.), AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 313-322 OF T.M. 14-502. HOWEVER, ALL CLAIMS FOR MUSTERING-OUT PAY UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO THE BAR IMPOSED BY THE 10 -YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD FIXED BY THE 1940 ACT.
IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE ON AUGUST 7, 1968, OVER 19 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF YOUR HUSBAND'S RETIREMENT ON MAY 31, 1949, AND ALMOST 23 YEARS AFTER HIS DISCHARGE IN 1942, THERE IS NO FURTHER ACTION THIS OFFICE MAY LEGALLY TAKE ON YOUR CLAIM.
IT IS NOTED THAT YOU MENTION 1942 AS THE YEAR YOUR HUSBAND WAS DISCHARGED. NO CLAIM IN THIS CASE WAS RECEIVED HERE UNTIL 1968 AND, ASIDE FROM THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, SECTION 3 OF THE MUSTERING-OUT PAYMENT ACT OF 1944, AS AMENDED, DENIES AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF A CLAIM FILED AFTER 1950 BY A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO WAS DISCHARGED IN 1942. ACCORDINGLY, THE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1968, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM, IS SUSTAINED.