B-127351, APR. 19, 1956

B-127351, APR. 19, 1956

TO MR. HAROLD S. YOUNG:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 29, 1956, REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ON HOLIDAYS AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WHICH CLAIM WAS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT AUTHORIZED BY LAW BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 21, 1951.

SINCE YOUR CLAIM FOR HOLIDAY SERVICES WAS NOT RECEIVED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE UNTIL DECEMBER 6, 1948, OUR SETTLEMENT DISALLOWED THAT PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM COVERING SERVICES RENDERED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 6, 1938, BECAUSE SUCH SERVICES WERE BARRED FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT. 1061. THAT ACT BARS CONSIDERATION OF ANY CLAIM NOT FILED IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WITHIN TEN YEARS FROM THE TIME THE CLAIM ACCRUED.

IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR BELIEF THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS, ON JULY 12, 1955, IN ALFRED C. BERGH, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, C.CLS. NO. 269-52, YOU NOW COULD BE AUTHORIZED COMPENSATION FOR HOLIDAY SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO DECEMBER 6, 1938. ACCORDINGLY, YOU MAKE CLAIM THEREFOR, AND YOU ASK TO BE ADVISED WHETHER YOU SHOULD REQUEST A STATEMENT FROM THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT "SHOWING THE OVERTIME PAY DUE ME WHICH DATES BACK TO 1921.'

THE BERGH CASE REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER PROVIDES FOR THE PAYMENT OF EXTRA COMPENSATION TO CERTAIN PER DIEM EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ON LEGAL HOLIDAYS; HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING THEREIN WHICH WOULD AFFORD A BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT OF YOUR CLAIM FOR HOLIDAY SERVICES RENDERED PRIOR TO DECEMBER 6, 1938, WHICH CLEARLY IS BARRED BY THE SAID ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940.

ACCORDINGLY, WE MUST INFORM YOU THAT THE SUGGESTED STATEMENT FROM THE COLLECTOR'S OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE, AND THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF FEBRUARY 21, 1951, MUST BE SUSTAINED.