B-100610, APR. 22, 1960

B-100610, APR. 22, 1960

TO KING AND KING, ATTORNEYS AT LAW:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS OF RECENT DATES, REQUESTING ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENTS, HARRY E. HEWES, CHARLES FRANK SCHAEFER, KENNETH EARL WEAGANT AND RICHARD OTTO ZIMMERMAN, THAT WE REVIEW OUR SETTLEMENTS WHICH DISALLOWED THEIR CLAIMS FOR INCREASED RETIRED PAY COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF ONE-HALF OF BASE PAY, PLUS PERMANENT ADDITIONS. THE CLAIMS WERE DENIED FOR THE REASON THAT SINCE THE MEMBERS' ACTUAL NAVAL SERVICE AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER TO THE FLEET RESERVE, PLUS ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED SUBSEQUENT TO TRANSFER, DID NOT EQUAL OR EXCEED 19 YEARS, 6 MONTHS' SERVICE--- SEE SECTION 208 OF THE NAVAL RESERVE ACT OF 1938, AS ADDED BY SECTION 3 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 10, 1946, 60 STAT. 993--- THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED FOR RETIRED PAY COMPUTED ON THE SAME BASIS AS MEMBER WHO ORIGINALLY TRANSFERRED TO THE FLEET RESERVE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF 20 OR MORE YEARS OF SERVICE. YOU EXPRESS THE BELIEF THAT THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN A SIMILAR CASE--- MOJICA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, C.CLS. NO. 264-52 (SADIE L. SENST AND PEGGY MAE WILSON, BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE OF WALTER CARR SENST, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF NO. 60), DECIDED JANUARY 20, 1960--- PROVIDES SUFFICIENT PRECEDENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ALLOWANCE OF SIMILAR CLAIMS.

YOU WERE INFORMED IN OUR DECISION OF MARCH 9, 1960, B-141999, THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT IN THE SENST CASE WAS NOT BEING FOLLOWED SINCE WE HAD REQUESTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER. WE HAVE NOW BEEN ADVISED THAT NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WILL BE TAKEN BY THAT DEPARTMENT IN THE SENST CASE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE SENST DECISION AS A PRECEDENT FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF OTHER SIMILAR CLAIMS. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIMS OF THE CLAIMANTS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE BEING RETURNED TO THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF THIS OFFICE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITH INSTRUCTIONS THAT THEY AND OTHER SIMILAR CLAIMS, IF OTHERWISE PROPER, MAY BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF THE SENST RULING.