B-154543, SEP. 2, 1964
Highlights
THE DECISION HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY YOU WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHECK HAD BEEN CASHED BY THE PAYEE AND PAID BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH AROSE BECAUSE THE CHECK IS NOT ON THE LIST OF OUTSTANDING CHECKS FOR THE DISBURSING OFFICE CONCERNED. BECAUSE THE CHECK APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PAID YOUR CLAIM WAS PRESENTED AFTER IT BECAME BARRED BY SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 22. THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR LETTER HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND THERE ARE FOUND NO ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH WOULD WARRANT MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION OF JULY 16. WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION CITED ABOVE. IS SUSTAINED.
B-154543, SEP. 2, 1964
TO MRS. A. J. CHAPERON:
YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 11, 1964, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION TO YOU DATED JULY 16, 1964, SUSTAINING OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT DATED JUNE 9, 1964. THE SETTLEMENT DENIED YOUR CLAIM FOR THE PROCEEDS OF CHECK NO. 12,791,361, DATED APRIL 27, 1949, FOR $62.30, DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF EMMA AND TOUSSANT CHAPERON.
THE DECISION HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY YOU WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE CHECK HAD BEEN CASHED BY THE PAYEE AND PAID BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH AROSE BECAUSE THE CHECK IS NOT ON THE LIST OF OUTSTANDING CHECKS FOR THE DISBURSING OFFICE CONCERNED. BECAUSE THE CHECK APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PAID YOUR CLAIM WAS PRESENTED AFTER IT BECAME BARRED BY SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 22, 1926, 44 STAT. 761 (31 U.S.C. 122).
THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR LETTER HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND THERE ARE FOUND NO ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH WOULD WARRANT MODIFICATION OF THE DECISION OF JULY 16, 1964. WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION CITED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION, UPON RECONSIDERATION, IS SUSTAINED.