B-135804, JUL. 9, 1958
Highlights
IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $230. REPRESENTING AN ERRONEOUS CREDIT FOR CLOTHING ALLOWANCE WHILE YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY YOUR ATTORNEY THAT THE UNDERLYING SPIRIT OF THE CASES CITED IN THE DECISION OF MAY 9 IS TO THE EFFECT THAT RESTITUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE MADE IN CASES WHERE THE RECIPIENT HAS RECEIVED A MATERIAL BENEFIT AND RESTITUTION WOULD RESULT IN NO LOSS TO HIM. INDICATES A BELIEF ON HIS PART THAT THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT PRESENT IN YOUR CASE. APPEARS SELF-EVIDENT THAT A PERSON WHO RECEIVES AND USES MONEY TO WHICH HE IS NOT ENTITLED. RECEIVES A MATERIAL BENEFIT AND IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT RESTITUTION OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WILL RESULT IN NO LOSS TO HIM SINCE THE MONEY DID NOT BELONG TO HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
B-135804, JUL. 9, 1958
TO MR. HARRY S. MEADE:
YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. FRANK O. MEADE, IN A LETTER OF MAY 13, 1958, REQUESTS THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR DECISION OF MAY 9, 1958, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT YOU ARE INDEBTED TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $230, REPRESENTING AN ERRONEOUS CREDIT FOR CLOTHING ALLOWANCE WHILE YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE.
THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY YOUR ATTORNEY THAT THE UNDERLYING SPIRIT OF THE CASES CITED IN THE DECISION OF MAY 9 IS TO THE EFFECT THAT RESTITUTION TO THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BE MADE IN CASES WHERE THE RECIPIENT HAS RECEIVED A MATERIAL BENEFIT AND RESTITUTION WOULD RESULT IN NO LOSS TO HIM, INDICATES A BELIEF ON HIS PART THAT THOSE FACTORS ARE NOT PRESENT IN YOUR CASE. APPEARS SELF-EVIDENT THAT A PERSON WHO RECEIVES AND USES MONEY TO WHICH HE IS NOT ENTITLED, RECEIVES A MATERIAL BENEFIT AND IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT RESTITUTION OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WILL RESULT IN NO LOSS TO HIM SINCE THE MONEY DID NOT BELONG TO HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHERE, AS HERE, APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS PERMIT THE CREDITING OF BUT ONE CLOTHING ALLOWANCE, THE GRANTING OF A SECOND ALLOWANCE CLEARLY RESULTS IN A BENEFIT NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW. IF, AS ALLEGED BY YOUR ATTORNEY, YOU WERE PREVENTED BY MILITARY OFFICERS FROM USING THE UNIFORMS WHICH WERE PROVIDED DURING YOUR FIRST ENLISTMENT, THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOU RECEIVED A BENEFIT FROM THE SECOND AND ILLEGAL CLOTHING ALLOWANCE. REASON IS PERCEIVED AS TO WHY YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO USE THE UNIFORMS WHICH WERE PROVIDED DURING YOUR FIRST ENLISTMENT IF YOU HAD KEPT THEM IN A USABLE CONDITION AND NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE WHICH EXPLAINS THE MATTER IN ANY WAY. PRESUMABLY, THERE WERE ADEQUATE REASONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN. BUT HOWEVER THAT MAY BE, IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU RECEIVED CREDIT FOR AN AMOUNT TO WHICH YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED AND WE ARE WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO RELIEVE YOU FROM THE OBLIGATION TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF THE ILLEGAL CLOTHING ALLOWANCE.
UPON REVIEW, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR DECISION OF MAY 9, 1958, IS FOUND CORRECT AND MUST BE SUSTAINED. LIQUIDATION OF THE INDEBTEDNESS SHOULD BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT DECISION.