B-134419, DEC. 9, 1957
Highlights
RETIRED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8. WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE 1935 NAVY REGISTER DOES NOT SHOW THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1. YOU WERE ADVANCED IN RANK. YOU REFER TO SUCH CHANGE IN STATUS AS AN ADVANCEMENT FROM THE SECOND PAY PERIOD OF COMMISSION TO THE THIRD PAY PERIOD OF A CHIEF COMMISSIONED WARRANT OFFICER AND INDICATE IT IS YOUR BELIEF THAT FOR SUCH REASON YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC LAW 85-255. - "THAT UPON APPLICATION OF ANY OFFICER OR FORMER OFFICER (INCLUDING THE WIDOWS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH OFFICERS WHO ARE DECEASED) OF THE SERVICES MENTIONED IN THE JOINT PAY ACT OF JUNE 10. WHICH WOULD HAVE ACCRUED TO SUCH OFFICER IF SUCH SECTION HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED IN HIS CASE (EXCEPT AS TO LONGEVITY) AND PAY TO SUCH OFFICER THE AMOUNT SO DETERMINED. * * * A REFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DISCLOSES THAT A PROVISION FOR PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCEMENT IN PAY PERIOD.
B-134419, DEC. 9, 1957
TO LIEUTENANT COMMANDER FRED MICHAELIS, USN, RETIRED:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1957, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1957, IN WHICH YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL PAY AND ALLOWANCES BELIEVED DUE YOU UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 85-255, APPROVED SEPTEMBER 2, 1957, 71 STAT. 575, WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT THE 1935 NAVY REGISTER DOES NOT SHOW THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1, 1932, TO JUNE 30, 1934, YOU WERE ADVANCED IN RANK.
YOU FURNISHED WITH YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1957, A PHOTOSTATIC COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE NAVY DEPARTMENT DATED JUNE 8, 1933, SHOWING THAT YOU COMPLETED TEN YEARS' COMMISSIONED SERVICE ON MARCH 9, 1933, AND THAT ON MARCH 10, 1933, YOU ENTERED THE STATUS OF A COMMISSIONED WARRANT OFFICER WITH MORE THAN TEN YEARS' COMMISSIONED SERVICE. YOU REFER TO SUCH CHANGE IN STATUS AS AN ADVANCEMENT FROM THE SECOND PAY PERIOD OF COMMISSION TO THE THIRD PAY PERIOD OF A CHIEF COMMISSIONED WARRANT OFFICER AND INDICATE IT IS YOUR BELIEF THAT FOR SUCH REASON YOU ARE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFITS OF PUBLIC LAW 85-255. THAT LAW PROVIDES IN PERTINENT PART---
"THAT UPON APPLICATION OF ANY OFFICER OR FORMER OFFICER (INCLUDING THE WIDOWS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF SUCH OFFICERS WHO ARE DECEASED) OF THE SERVICES MENTIONED IN THE JOINT PAY ACT OF JUNE 10, 1922, WHO, UPON ADVANCEMENT IN RANK, DID NOT RECEIVE AN INCREASE IN THE RATES OF PAY OR ALLOWANCES FOR ANY PART OF THE PERIOD BEGINNING JULY 1, 1932, AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1934, BY REASON OF THE APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF SUCH OFFICER OF SECTION 201 (EXCEPT AS TO LONGEVITY INCREASE PROVIDED FOR IN THE TENTH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1 OF SAID JOINT PAY ACT) OF THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION ACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1933, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL SHALL DETERMINE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES, IN ADDITION TO THAT OTHERWISE ACCRUING, WHICH WOULD HAVE ACCRUED TO SUCH OFFICER IF SUCH SECTION HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED IN HIS CASE (EXCEPT AS TO LONGEVITY) AND PAY TO SUCH OFFICER THE AMOUNT SO DETERMINED. * * *
A REFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE ACT DISCLOSES THAT A PROVISION FOR PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCEMENT IN PAY PERIOD, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ADVANCEMENT IN RANK, APPEARING IN PRIOR BILLS, WAS ELIMINATED FROM H.R. 293, WHICH BECAME PUBLIC LAW 85-255. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ACT IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THOSE OFFICERS WHO, DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, WERE ACTUALLY ADVANCED IN RANK AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THOSE WHO, EXCEPT FOR THE PROVISIONS OF THE ECONOMY ACT, WOULD HAVE RECEIVED INCREASES IN PAY BASED UPON LENGTH OF SERVICE (INCLUDING ADVANCEMENT TO THE NEXT PAY PERIOD).
SINCE YOU WERE NOT ADVANCED IN RANK DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, OUR SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1957, PROPERLY DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM.