B-141587, SEP. 15, 1960

B-141587, SEP. 15, 1960

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL R. H. MACPHERSON, ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE OFFICER:

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 7, 1960 (FINGS-AF 201 BLOOM, LEWIS M., 01 057 681), REQUESTED DECISION AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON A VOUCHER TRANSMITTED THEREWITH IN THE AMOUNT OF $118.03 IN FAVOR OF CAPTAIN LEWIS M. BLOOM, ORC, USA. THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE DIFFERENCE IN INACTIVE TRAINING DUTY PAY BETWEEN THAT OF A FIRST LIEUTENANT WITH SIX YEARS OF SERVICE AND THAT OF A CAPTAIN WITH SIX YEARS OF SERVICE FOR 36 ASSEMBLIES DURING THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 1949, TO JULY 31, 1950, AND BETWEEN THE PAY OF THOSE GRADES WITH EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE FOR 35 ASSEMBLIES DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 1950, TO MAY 31, 1951, RESULTING FROM THE CORRECTION OF HIS MILITARY RECORDS UNDER AUTHORITY OF 10 U.S.C. 1552. YOUR LETTER WAS FORWARDED HERE BY FIRST INDORSEMENT OF JULY 1, 1960, HAVING BEEN ASSIGNED D.O. NO. 510 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE.

THE CLAIM WAS CONSIDERED IN OUR DECISION B-141587 OF FEBRUARY 25, 1960, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, IN WHICH WE SAID THAT, IN VIEW OF THE ACTION TAKEN TO CORRECT CAPTAIN BLOOM'S RECORDS, IT APPEARS THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY BUT THAT SINCE HIS RIGHT TO PAY FOR ATTENDANCE AT ASSEMBLIES DURING THE PERIOD WHILE ASSIGNED TO THE 821ST ORDER OF BATTLE DETACHMENT DEPENDED UPON ATTENDANCE AT ASSEMBLIES OF QUALIFYING PERCENTAGES OF ITS AUTHORIZED STRENGTH, IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PAYMENT WITH EVIDENCE OF THE UNIT'S AUTHORIZED STRENGTH.

THERE NOW HAS BEEN FURNISHED EVIDENCE--- PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF NME FORM 10 (PAY ROLL--- INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING) WITH A CERTIFICATION BY THE UNIT INSTRUCTOR--- BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER, HEADQUARTERS 24TH AIR RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT BATTALION, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, INDICATING THAT THE ORDER OF BATTLE DETACHMENT IN QUESTION WAS CONSIDERED AS BOTH AUTHORIZED AND ASSIGNED ONE OFFICER AND TWO ENLISTED MEN AND THAT A QUALIFYING PERCENTAGE OF ITS AUTHORIZED STRENGTH WAS IN ATTENDANCE DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED. THUS, CAPTAIN BLOOM IS ENTITLED TO AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF PAY BY REASON OF THE CORRECTION OF HIS RECORDS.

HOWEVER, YOU EXPRESS DOUBT AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF PAYMENT FOR THE REASON THAT THE OFFICER PREVIOUSLY WAS PAID $64.09 ON HIS CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY DUE FOR ACTIVE DUTY (TERMINAL LEAVE) FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 6, 1946, TO MARCH 16, 1946, AS THE RESULT OF THE CORRECTION OF THE RECORDS IN HIS CASE AND THAT HE SIGNED A RELEASE OF ANY FURTHER CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CORRECTION OF RECORDS. THIS CONNECTION YOU CITE DECISION B-121116, DATED OCTOBER 18, 1954, 34 COMP. GEN. 188.

BY LETTER DATED MARCH 17, 1959 (COPY OF WHICH YOU ENCLOSED), THE OFFICER SENT A LETTER TO THE ADJUTANT GENERAL CLAIMING ADDITIONAL PAY FOR HIS TERMINAL LEAVE BASED ON THE CORRECTION OF HIS RECORDS AND THE CERTIFICATE WHICH HE SIGNED WAS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLAIM. BY LETTER OF THE SAME DATE, HOWEVER, THE OFFICER ALSO SENT A LETTER TO THE ADJUTANT GENERAL REQUESTING A RECORD OF PAID ASSEMBLIES ATTENDED BY HIM AFTER RELEASE FROM THE ACTIVE DUTY TO WHICH HIS TERMINAL LEAVE CLAIM WAS APPLICABLE IN CONNECTION WITH A CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PAY OF A CAPTAIN AND THAT OF A FIRST LIEUTENANT FOR ATTENDANCE AT SUCH RESERVE ASSEMBLIES BASED ON THE CORRECTION OF HIS RECORDS. THIS LATTER LETTER AND THE CLAIM VOUCHERS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN DRILL PAY WERE HANDLED INDEPENDENTLY OF THE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL TERMINAL LEAVE PAY AND WERE TRANSMITTED TO OUR CLAIMS DIVISION FOR SETTLEMENT AS A BARRED CLAIM ON DECEMBER 7, 1959. AS STATED ABOVE THIS DRILL PAY CLAIM WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF FEBRUARY 25, 1960. THUS THE OFFICER WAS PROCESSING TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLAIMS ON THE BASIS OF THE CORRECTION OF HIS RECORDS.

THE RELEASE WAS EXECUTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 207 (C) OF THE LEGISLATIVE REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 191A (C), WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE CLAIMANT OF ANY SETTLEMENT MADE UNDER SUBSECTION (B) OF SECTION 207 SHALL CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE RELEASE BY THE CLAIMANT OF ANY CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CORRECTION OF RECORD. HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE, AS IN THE INSTANT CASE, A CLAIMANT IS ACTIVELY PROSECUTING TWO SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE CORRECTION OF HIS RECORDS, A RELEASE OF FURTHER DEMANDS EXECUTED ON THE ONE CLAIM DOES NOT OPERATE TO BAR RECOVERY ON THE OTHER. SEE 34 COMP. GEN. 456, AND 37 COMP. GEN. 852, CITING HIETT V. UNITED STATES, 131 CT.CL. 585.

ACCORDINGLY, THE VOUCHER AND SUPPORTING PAPERS ARE RETURNED, PAYMENT THEREON BEING AUTHORIZED.