B-146185, APR. 5, 1962

B-146185, APR. 5, 1962

TO MR. HILLARD DAUGHERTY:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1962, REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR INCREASED RETIRED PAY BELIEVED TO BE DUE YOU AS A RETIRED FLEET RESERVIST FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 3, 1950, TO THE PRESENT DATE.

IT APPEARS THAT DESPITE THE EXPLANATIONS HERETOFORE FURNISHED, YOU ARE STILL OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITIONAL RETIRED PAY WOULD BE DUE IF YOUR RETIRED PAY WERE COMPUTED UNDER THE RULE RECOGNIZED IN THE CASE OF MOJICA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 264-52, JANUARY 20, 1960, AND OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1961, B-146185. WHILE WE AGREED IN THAT DECISION THAT THE MOJICA CASE FURNISHED A BASIS FOR CREDITING YOU WITH 25 YEARS OF SERVICE (INCLUDING CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING YOUR RETIRED PAY UNDER THE 2 1/2 PERCENT TIMES YEARS OF SERVICE FORMULA OF SECTION 204 OF THE NAVAL RESERVE ACT OF 1938, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 10, 1946, 60 STAT. 993, OUR LETTER TO YOU DATED DECEMBER 7, 1961, SHOWED THAT RETIRED PAY SO COMPUTED WAS LESS THAN THAT WHICH HAS BEEN PAID TO YOU.

WHILE YOU STATE THAT "THE ACTS OF 1949 (CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 802) SHOWED PAY FORMULA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY CLAIM OR ANY BACK MONEY DUE ME," THE AMOUNT CLAIMED IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 15, 1961, AS BEING DUE FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 3, 1950, TO APRIL 30, 1952, IS $200 PER MONTH. YOU COULD ARRIVE AT A FIGURE THAT LARGE ONLY BY USING THE PAY RATE PRESCRIBED IN THE 1949 ACT AND SUCH RATE IS APPLICABLE IN YOUR CASE ONLY BY MEANS OF A COMPUTATION UNDER METHOD (B), SECTION 511 OF THAT ACT. IN OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 20, 1962, YOU WERE FURNISHED A FULL EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS WHY, UNDER METHOD(B) OF SECTION 511, THE COMPUTATION OF YOUR RETIRED PAY MUST BE BASED ON YOUR 22 YEARS OF ACTIVE SERVICE WITHOUT INCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTIVE SERVICE.

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 26, 1962, CONTAINS NO INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND WE FIND NO BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM.