B-98217, SEP. 15, 1964

B-98217: Sep 15, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

WHICH EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE REASONS WHY YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ALLEGED TO BE DUE. WAS SENT TO YOU AFFIRMING THAT DECISION. YOU STATE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. ARE ENCLOSING COPIES OF OUR LETTERS TO YOU OF NOVEMBER 1. IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT REOPEN A SETTLEMENT OR REVERSE A DECISION MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE EXCEPT UPON PRODUCTION OF NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE. OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REOPEN AND REVISE THE ABOVE REFERRED-TO SETTLEMENT.

B-98217, SEP. 15, 1964

TO MR. CECIL P. JAMES:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 3, AUGUST 21 AND AUGUST 28, 1964, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING FURTHER REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED MAY 31, 1950, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MINIMUM AND THE SECOND STEP RATES IN GRADE P-4 FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1948, TO MARCH 18, 1949, WHILE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, TOKYO, JAPAN.

UPON APPEAL OF YOUR CASE IN 1950, THE THEN COMPTROLLER GENERAL RENDERED DECISION B-98217, DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1950, WHICH EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THE REASONS WHY YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ALLEGED TO BE DUE. A SUBSEQUENT LETTER DATED JANUARY 10, 1951, WAS SENT TO YOU AFFIRMING THAT DECISION.

WE NOTE THAT IN YOUR LETTERS OF AUGUST 3, AUGUST 21 AND AUGUST 28, 1964, YOU STATE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. WE, THEREFORE, ARE ENCLOSING COPIES OF OUR LETTERS TO YOU OF NOVEMBER 1, 1950, AND JANUARY 10, 1951.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR REQUEST FOR FURTHER REVIEW OF YOUR CASE AT THIS TIME, IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT AN OFFICER OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT REOPEN A SETTLEMENT OR REVERSE A DECISION MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE EXCEPT UPON PRODUCTION OF NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, OR TO CORRECT MANIFEST MISTAKES OF FACT SUCH AS ERRORS IN CALCULATION, OR FOR FRAUD OR COLLUSION. SEE NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R.R. CO., 147 U.S. 165; LAVALETTE V. UNITED STATES, 1 CT.CL. 147; 16 COMP. GEN. 51; ID. 118.

THE DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED WITH YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 28, 1964, DO NOT CONSTITUTE NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE, THE SAME DOCUMENTS HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE IN OUR EARLIER REVIEW OF YOUR CASE.

ACCORDINGLY, OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO REOPEN AND REVISE THE ABOVE REFERRED-TO SETTLEMENT.