B-125230, FEB. 27, 1956
Highlights
IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU SAY THAT THE DECEDENT WAS EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT. YOU ALSO SAY THAT THE DECEDENT FAILED TO RETURN AFTER THE "ULTIMATE FALL OF BATAAN" AND THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF TIME YOU PRESUMED THAT HE WAS DEAD. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NOTIFIED OUR OFFICE THAT A DETERMINATION HAD BEEN MADE THAT SIMEON ENRIQUEZ- EMPLOYMENT WITH THAT DEPARTMENT WAS INTERMITTENT OR LOCAL LABOR CASUALLY HIRED AND THAT. YOU WERE ADVISED ACCORDINGLY IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 23. IT WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO YOU. THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER WHICH WOULD WARRANT A MODIFICATION OF THE ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN REGARDING YOUR CLAIM. YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE ON YOUR PART WITH RESPECT TO THIS MATTER WILL SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE.
B-125230, FEB. 27, 1956
TO MR. DIONISIO RAMIREZ:
YOUR RECENT LETTER ACKNOWLEDGED JANUARY 16, 1956, REQUESTS REVIEW OF THE ACTION OF OUR OFFICE WHICH DENIED YOUR CLAIM FOR AN AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE THE ESTATE OF SIMEON C. ENRIQUEZ, DECEASED, FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE MISSING PERSONS ACT, PUBLIC LAW 491, 56 STAT. 143, AS AMENDED.
IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU SAY THAT THE DECEDENT WAS EMPLOYED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY ORDNANCE DEPOT, LITTLE BAGUIO, MARIVELES, BATAAN, PHILIPPINES, AS A LABORER, AND THAT AFTER THE TIME OF HIS ENTRY UPON DUTY AT THE ORDNANCE DEPOT "HE DID NOT LEAVE HIS DUTIES NOT UNTIL AFTER THE HEAVY ENEMY BOMBING OF THE AREA WHICH TERMINATED THE WORK ON THE PROJECT ON 9 APRIL 1942.' YOU ALSO SAY THAT THE DECEDENT FAILED TO RETURN AFTER THE "ULTIMATE FALL OF BATAAN" AND THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF TIME YOU PRESUMED THAT HE WAS DEAD.
THE ABOVE MISSING PERSONS ACT EXPRESSLY EXCLUDES FROM THE BENEFITS OF THE ACT "PART-TIME OR INTERMITTENT EMPLOYEES OR NATIVE LABOR CASUALLY HIRED ON AN HOURLY OR PER DIEM BASIS.' UNDER DATE OF JUNE 29, 1954, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NOTIFIED OUR OFFICE THAT A DETERMINATION HAD BEEN MADE THAT SIMEON ENRIQUEZ- EMPLOYMENT WITH THAT DEPARTMENT WAS INTERMITTENT OR LOCAL LABOR CASUALLY HIRED AND THAT, THEREFORE, HE DID NOT COME WITHIN PURVIEW OF THE ACT. YOU WERE ADVISED ACCORDINGLY IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF MAY 23, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM. ALSO, IT WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED TO YOU, IN OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1955, B-125230, THAT UNDER THE LAW THE DETERMINATION BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED, OR BY SUCH PERSON AS HE MAY DESIGNATE ,SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE.' IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NOTHING CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER WHICH WOULD WARRANT A MODIFICATION OF THE ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN REGARDING YOUR CLAIM.
ACCORDINGLY, YOU MAY BE ADVISED THAT FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE ON YOUR PART WITH RESPECT TO THIS MATTER WILL SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE.