B-127470, MAY 8, 1956

B-127470, MAY 8, 1956

TO CAPTAIN CHESTER L. BLUNK, AO 2065373, USAF:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR UNDATED LETTER, RECEIVED MARCH 15, 1956, REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 28, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND INFANT CHILD) FROM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, TO HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND 2, 1952, INCIDENT TO YOUR SERVICE AS A FIRST LIEUTENANT, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE RESERVE.

BY LETTER ORDERS NO. PAE-5489, DATED AUGUST 8, 1951, HEADQUARTERS, 1704TH AIR TRANSPORT GROUP, CNTLD-MATS, TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, YOU WERE RELIEVED FROM ASSIGNMENT AND DUTY AT THAT STATION AND TRANSFERRED TO THE 47TH BOMBER WING, LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA. ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1951, YOU SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT (WIFE), CERTIFYING THAT SHE DEPARTED LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ON AUGUST 27, 1951, AND ARRIVED LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, VIRGINIA, ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1951. ON THE BASIS OF YOUR CERTIFICATE YOU WERE PAID $174.78 AS REIMBURSEMENT FOR HER TRAVEL ON VOUCHER NO. 9624, SEPTEMBER 1951 ACCOUNTS OF MAJOR J. O. HORNBAKER, USAF, SYMBOL 225-270. SINCE YOUR DEPENDENCY CERTIFICATES, NME FORMS 137, SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 2 AND JULY 1, 1952, TO SUPPORT INCREASED ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS, SHOWED THAT YOUR DEPENDENT'S ADDRESS WAS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AN EXCEPTION WAS TAKEN TO THE PAYMENT IN THE DISBURSING OFFICER'S ACCOUNT BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT THE TRAVEL WAS NOT PERFORMED OR WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE INTENTION OF CHANGING YOUR DEPENDENTS' RESIDENCE. THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT WAS COLLECTED ON YOUR MILITARY PAY RECORD FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 30, 1955. IN SUPPORT OF YOUR PRESENT CLAIM YOU CERTIFIED THAT YOUR DEPENDENTS (WIFE AND INFANT CHILD, AGE 4 MONTHS) TRAVELED FROM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, TO HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND 2, 1952, AND THAT YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM WAS SUBMITTED IN ERROR. SINCE THE RECORD INDICATED THAT YOUR DEPENDENT'S ADDRESS ON JULY 1, 1952, WAS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, YOUR PRESENT CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE IT APPEARED THAT THE TRAVEL PERFORMED BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND 2, 1952, WAS NOT PERFORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING A BONA FIDE RESIDENCE AT HAMPTON, VIRGINIA.

IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE ACTION TAKEN ON YOUR PRESENT CLAIM YOU SAY THAT YOUR CERTIFICATE OF DEPENDENCY, DD FORM 137, SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 2, 1952, SHOWING THAT THE ADDRESS OF YOUR DEPENDENTS ON THAT DATE WAS LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, WAS CORRECT, BUT THAT THEIR ADDRESS AS SHOWN ON THE DEPENDENCY CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED ON JULY 1, 1952, WAS NOT CORRECT, SINCE THEY ACTUALLY TRAVELED FROM LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, TO HAMPTON, VIRGINIA, BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND 2, 1952, WHERE THEY REMAINED WITH YOU UNTIL YOUR TRANSFER TO MATHER AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA, IN JULY 1954. YOU SAY ALSO THAT YOU CAN FURNISH AFFIDAVITS FROM LANDLORDS AND NEIGHBORS, RECORDS OF THE BASE HOSPITAL, LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, AND OTHER RECORDS SHOWING THAT YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS WERE TRANSPORTED FROM LOS ANGELES TO HAMPTON IN 1952, THEREBY PROVING THAT THE TRAVEL PERFORMED BETWEEN MARCH 1 AND 2, 1952, WAS PERFORMED WITH THE INTENTION OF ESTABLISHING A BONA FIDE RESIDENCE AT THE LATTER PLACE. HOWEVER, YOUR RIGHT TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF YOUR DEPENDENTS DOES NOT DEPEND ENTIRELY UPON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESIDENCE IN VIRGINIA. THE STATEMENTS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR PRESENT CLAIM CLEARLY INDICATE THAT YOUR INITIAL CLAIM CONTAINED FALSE STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE TRAVEL OF YOUR DEPENDENT FROM LOS ANGELES TO HAMPTON. THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE THAT YOUR INITIAL CLAIM WAS PRESENTED SHOWING THAT YOUR DEPENDENT HAD PERFORMED TRAVEL WHEN IN FACT SUCH TRAVEL HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED AND YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE FALSE.

THE FRAUDULENT PRESENTATION OF A CLAIM AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FOR A GREATER AMOUNT THAN IS DUE VITIATES AND DESTROYS THE CLAIMANT'S RIGHT IN THE ENTIRE CLAIM. 28 U.S.C. 2514. HENCE, EVEN THOUGH IT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE TRAVEL FOR WHICH REIMBURSEMENT IS PRESENTLY CLAIMED ACTUALLY WAS PERFORMED IN MARCH 1952, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR SECOND CLAIM MUST BE SUSTAINED.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN RESPECTING YOUR CLAIM.