B-155450, JUN. 14, 1965
Highlights
THE CLAIM WAS FILED IN DECEMBER 1963 AND WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 8. IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REITERATE YOUR EARLIER CONTENTIONS THAT THE SERVICE IN QUESTION WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY RENDERED. THAT YOU DID NOT GET A PROMOTION TO COMPENSATE FOR IT AS YOU APPARENTLY EXPECTED AND YOU ASK WHY YOU CANNOT BE PAID THAT TO WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED. THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS IS GOVERNED BY LAWS AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAWS. DISBURSEMENTS NOT IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH ARE IMPROPER. SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT A FURTHER REVIEW OF THE FACTS OF RECORD WOULD SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE WHICH DOES NOT FURNISH NEW AND PERTINENT INFORMATION WILL BE FILED WITHOUT REPLY.
B-155450, JUN. 14, 1965
TO MR. WILLIAM S. VAN BOOVEN:
YOUR LETTER OF MAY 28, 1965, REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE WITH THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, COLORADO RIVER AGENCY, DURING 1956 AND 1957.
THE CLAIM WAS FILED IN DECEMBER 1963 AND WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 8, 1964. AT YOUR REQUEST WE REVIEWED THE MATTER AND BY OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 10, 1964, SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE. IN THAT DECISION WE DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF RECORD AND EXPLAINED WHY SUCH FACTS DID NOT BRING YOUR CASE WITHIN THE LAW APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION. UPON RECEIPT OF YOUR FURTHER REQUEST WE AGAIN REVIEWED THE MATTER AND ADVISED YOU ON FEBRUARY 9, 1965, THAT WE FOUND NO BASIS FOR A CHANGE IN OUR VIEWS.
IN YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU REITERATE YOUR EARLIER CONTENTIONS THAT THE SERVICE IN QUESTION WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY RENDERED, THAT YOU DID NOT GET A PROMOTION TO COMPENSATE FOR IT AS YOU APPARENTLY EXPECTED AND YOU ASK WHY YOU CANNOT BE PAID THAT TO WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU ARE RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED.
THE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS IS GOVERNED BY LAWS AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS WHICH HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAWS. DISBURSEMENTS NOT IN CONFORMITY THEREWITH ARE IMPROPER. ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORTED FACTS WE KNOW OF NO EXISTING AUTHORITY FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. ALSO, SINCE IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT A FURTHER REVIEW OF THE FACTS OF RECORD WOULD SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE WHICH DOES NOT FURNISH NEW AND PERTINENT INFORMATION WILL BE FILED WITHOUT REPLY.