Skip to main content

B-134751, AUGUST 22, 1958, 38 COMP. GEN. 137

B-134751 Aug 22, 1958
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

THE DATE A DETERMINATION WAS MADE PURSUANT TO THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY UNDER THE LAST PROVISO OF SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 3. THAT THE OFFICER WAS PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED AS AN INCIDENT OF SERVICE ORIGINATING IN 1944. WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 18 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF SERVICE MAY NOT HAVE INACTIVE SERVICE AFTER RETIREMENT CREDITED FOR LONGEVITY PURPOSES TO INCREASE RETIRED PAY UNDER LAWS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME WHICH AUTHORIZE RETIRED PAY INCREASES ONLY FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED AFTER RETIREMENT. GEN. 78 TO THE EFFECT THAT AN OFFICER WHO WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN 1944 WAS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR INACTIVE SERVICE BETWEEN THE DATE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RETIREMENT FOR DISABILITY.

View Decision

B-134751, AUGUST 22, 1958, 38 COMP. GEN. 137

MILITARY PERSONNEL - DISABILITY RETIRED PAY - SERVICE CREDITS - INACTIVE SERVICE AN ARMY OFFICER WHO PERFORMED INACTIVE AND ACTIVE SERVICE BETWEEN THE DATE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON AUGUST 31, 1944, NOT FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, AS A MAJOR WITH MORE THAN 18 YEARS, BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF SERVICE, AND THE DATE A DETERMINATION WAS MADE PURSUANT TO THE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY UNDER THE LAST PROVISO OF SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1939, THAT THE OFFICER WAS PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED AS AN INCIDENT OF SERVICE ORIGINATING IN 1944, AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 18 YEARS BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF SERVICE MAY NOT HAVE INACTIVE SERVICE AFTER RETIREMENT CREDITED FOR LONGEVITY PURPOSES TO INCREASE RETIRED PAY UNDER LAWS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME WHICH AUTHORIZE RETIRED PAY INCREASES ONLY FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED AFTER RETIREMENT. THE HOLDING IN 31 COMP. GEN. 78 TO THE EFFECT THAT AN OFFICER WHO WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN 1944 WAS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR INACTIVE SERVICE BETWEEN THE DATE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RETIREMENT FOR DISABILITY, WHICH WAS SEPTEMBER 10, 1949, THE DATE THE FINDINGS OF THE DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD WERE APPROVED, IS INCONSISTENT WITH DECISION 36 COMP. GEN. 516 WHICH WAS BASED ON UPDIKE V. UNITED STATES, 132 C.1CLS. 627, AND WHICH HELD THAT OFFICER WAS ENTITLED TO RETIRED PAY FROM THE DATE OF RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS WHICH QUALIFIED HIM FOR DISABILITY RETIRED PAY WERE NOT DETERMINED BY PROPER AUTHORITY UNTIL A LATER DATE, AND WILL NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED. 31 COMP. GEN. 78, OVERRULED IN PART.

TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL N. P. HANNA, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, AUGUST 22, 1958:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 3, 1958, WITH ENCLOSURES, TRANSMITTED HERE BY FIRST ENDORSEMENT DATED JUNE 16, 1958, OF THE CHIEF OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, REQUESTING DECISION WHETHER PAYMENT MAY BE MADE TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL RUSSELL C. JORDAN ON A VOUCHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $66.27, REPRESENTING ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE RETIRED PAY OF A MAJOR WITH OVER 18 YEARS' BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS' SERVICE AND THAT OF A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1958. YOUR REQUEST WAS ALLOCATED D.O. NUMBER 353 BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY PAY AND ALLOWANCE COMMITTEE.

THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AS THEY APPEAR FROM YOUR LETTER AND THE FILES OF OUR OFFICE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

COLONEL JORDAN WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON AUGUST 31, 1944, NOT FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, WHILE SERVING AS A MAJOR. AT THAT TIME HE HAD OVER 18 BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF SERVICE. HE WAS RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY AND SERVED FROM OCTOBER 25, 1944, TO NOVEMBER 3, 1944, WHEN HE WAS RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY. HE WAS RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY JULY 16, 1945; RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY DECEMBER 28, 1945, BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PROMOTED TO LIEUTENANT COLONEL, AUS, JANUARY 21, 1946; RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY JULY 31, 1946; AND RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY OCTOBER 31, 1947, NOT BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY. APPEARED BEFORE A NUMBER OF ARMY RETIRING BOARDS AFTER AUGUST 31, 1944, BUT FAVORABLE ACTION WAS NOT TAKEN ON HIS CASE. HE FINALLY APPEARED BEFORE AN ARMY DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD, APPOINTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944, 58 STAT. 287, AS AMENDED, 38 U.S.C. 6931. AS A RESULT OF THE FINDINGS BY THAT BOARD ON DECEMBER 3, 1948, THAT HE WAS PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED FOR ACTIVE SERVICE AS AN INCIDENT OF THE SERVICE ORIGINATION IN 1944--- APPROVED BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY ON DECEMBER 3, 1946--- THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE ARMY ADVISED THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, ON FEBRUARY 14, 1949, THAT THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY HAD DETERMINED THAT COLONEL JORDAN WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT PAY AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE, EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 3, 1948, PURSUANT TO THE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1939, 53 STAT. 557, 10 U.S.C. 456. ON AUGUST 20, 1953, THE DETERMINATION WAS AMENDED TO SHOW ENTITLEMENT EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 3, 1948, AS A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 18 BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS' SERVICE, AND COLONEL JORDAN'S RETIREMENT PAY WAS ADJUSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED DETERMINATION.

BY LETTER DATED OCTOBER 15, 1953, COLONEL JORDAN PRESENTED A CLAIM HERE FOR RETROACTIVE RETIRED PAY FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 3, 1944, TO DECEMBER 3, 1948, EXCLUDING PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY, LESS COMPENSATION PAID BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION. THE CLAIM WAS PREDICATED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS IN THE CASE OF HAMRICK V. UNITED STATES, 120 C.1CLS. 17. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 25, 1954, FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY NOT FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, ON AUGUST 31, 1944, AND HENCE THE FACTS OF HIS CASE WERE NOT THE SAME OR SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE HAMRICK CASE.

BY LETTER DATED DECEMBER 14, 1956, COLONEL JORDAN AGAIN PRESENTED A CLAIM HERE, CLAIMING THAT IF RETIRED PAY WAS NOT PAYABLE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO DECEMBER 3, 1948, THEN ALL SERVICE TO THAT DATE SHOULD BE COUNTED TOWARDS HIS RETIRED PAY, AND THAT THIS WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF 21 YEARS' SERVICE, RATHER THAN OVER 18 BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS WITH WHICH HE WAS BEING CREDITED. IN A SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER DATED APRIL 7, 1957, COLONEL JORDAN MADE SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO OUR DECISION DATED JANUARY 18, 1957, B-129859, 36 COMP. GEN. 516. IN SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 12, 1957, COLONEL JORDAN'S RETIRED PAY FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 3, 1948, THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 1957, WAS ADJUSTED AND HE WAS ALLOWED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETIRED PAY OF A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 18 YEARS' SERVICE AND THE RETIRED PAY OF A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE. UPON RECEIVING A CHECK FOR THIS LATTER SETTLEMENT, COLONEL JORDAN, BY LETTER DATED MAY 27, 1957, AGAIN CALLED ATTENTION TO HIS PRIOR LETTERS AND ASKED FOR A DETERMINATION AS TO THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT. IN VIEW OF THIS REQUEST AND COLONEL JORDAN'S REFERENCE TO OUR DECISION OF JANUARY 18, 1957, IT WAS CONSIDERED THAT HE WAS AGAIN CLAIMING RETROACTIVE RETIRED PAY. UPON RECONSIDERATION, FOR REASONS EXPLAINED BELOW, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT COLONEL JORDAN WAS RETIRED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 31, 1944, AS A MAJOR WITH OVER 18 YEARS' BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS' SERVICE, AND ADJUSTMENT OF HIS RETIRED PAY TO CONFORM TO THAT DETERMINATION WAS MADE IN SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 21, 1958.

YOU NOW STATE THAT COLONEL JORDAN HAS RETURNED THE CHECK ISSUED IN PAYMENT OF THIS LATTER SETTLEMENT AND THAT HE REQUESTS ADJUSTMENT OF HIS RETIRED PAY TO THAT OF A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE, THE BASIS ON WHICH THE VOUCHER FOR ADJUSTMENT OF JUNE 1958 RETIRED PAY IS COMPUTED.

YOU ALSO STATE THAT IN VIEW OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A COPY OF A STATEMENT OF SERVICE, FROM THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, DATED AUGUST 20, 1948, TO THE EFFECT THAT COLONEL JORDAN WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN 1944, YOU ARE IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER THE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 12, 1957--- CREDITING COLONEL JORDAN WITH OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE--- MODIFIES OUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1951, 31 COMP. GEN. 78.

THE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 12, 1957, WAS SUPERSEDED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 21, 1958, AND COLONEL JORDAN WAS ALLOWED RETROACTIVE RETIRED PAY FROM THE DATE OF HIS RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON AUGUST 31, 1944. SINCE HE WAS A MAJOR WITH OVER 18 YEARS' BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS' SERVICE AT THAT TIME, HIS RETIRED PAY WAS COMPUTED ON THAT BASIS, AND THERE WAS OFFSET AGAINST THAT AMOUNT THE DISABILITY COMPENSATION PAID BY THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 1947, THROUGH DECEMBER 2, 1948, AND ALSO THE AMOUNT PAID TO COLONEL JORDAN AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETIRED PAY OF A MAJOR WITH OVER 18 YEARS' SERVICE AND THE RETIRED PAY OF A LIEUTENANT COLONEL WITH OVER 21 YEARS' SERVICE, FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 3, 1948, TO FEBRUARY 28, 1957.

WHILE THE STATEMENT OF SERVICE, DATED AUGUST 20, 1948, SHOWED THAT COLONEL JORDAN WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY FROM FEBRUARY 3, 1941, TO NOVEMBER 3, 1944, WHEN HE WAS RELIEVED BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY, WE HAD A LATER REPORT FROM THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, DATED MARCH 24, 1954, WHICH SHOWED THAT COLONEL JORDAN WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY AS A COMMISSIONED OFFICER FROM FEBRUARY 3, 1941, TO AUGUST 31, 1944, AND FROM OCTOBER 25 TO NOVEMBER 3, 1944. IN VIEW OF THE APPARENT CONFLICT AS TO THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1 TO OCTOBER 24, 1944, BETWEEN THE TWO STATEMENTS, A FURTHER REPORT WAS REQUESTED, AND BY ENDORSEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 8, 1957, THE ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE REPORTED THAT COLONEL JORDAN WAS RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON AUGUST 31, 1944, AND WAS IN AN INACTIVE STATUS FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1944, TO OCTOBER 25, 1944, WHEN HE WAS ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY. ALSO, IT WAS REPORTED THAT HE SERVED ON ACTIVE DUTY FROM OCTOBER 25, 1944 TO NOVEMBER 3, 1944, WHEN HE WAS RELIEVED FROM ACTIVE DUTY BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY.

SINCE COLONEL JORDAN WAS NOT RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY BY REASON OF PHYSICAL DISABILITY ON AUGUST 31, 1944, AND HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE A RETIRING BOARD PRIOR TO THAT DATE, IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED THAT THE DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD BEFORE WHICH HE APPEARED WAS FUNCTIONING AS A BOARD ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 302 OF THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944. 30 COMP. GEN. 409; 31 ID. 78; 31 ID. 681. HENCE IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ACTION TAKEN IN THIS CASE WAS PREDICATED ON THE GENERAL DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY PLACED IN THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAST PROVISO OF SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1939, 10 U.S.C. 456. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE HELD IN 36 COMP. GEN. 516, QUOTING THE SYLLABUS:

THE APPROVAL BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY OF A DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD'S FINDINGS THAT A RESERVE OFFICER, WHO HAD BEEN RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY NOT BY REASON OF DISABILITY, HAD A PERMANENT INCAPACITY AS THE RESULT OF ACTIVE MILITARY SERVICE AND WAS ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT PAY BENEFITS MADE THE FINDINGS VALID AND EFFECTIVE, EVEN THOUGH THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO RENDER A DECISION UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SERVICEMEN'S READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1944, AND, THEREFORE, THE MEMBER IS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY RETIRED PAY BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF APRIL 3, 1939, RETROACTIVELY EFFECTIVE FROM THE DAY FOLLOWING THE DATE OF HIS RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE OFFICER WAS RETIRED EFFECTIVE AUGUST 31, 1944, AS A MAJOR WITH OVER 18 BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS' SERVICE.

PART OF THE HOLDING IN THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1951, 31 COMP. GEN. 78, WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT AN OFFICER RETIRED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE HERE INVOLVED WAS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR INACTIVE SERVICE BETWEEN THE DATE HE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF HIS RETIRMENT, IN DETERMINING THE RATE OF ACTIVE-DUTY PAY UPON WHICH HIS RETIRED PAY WAS COMPUTED. THAT HOLDING WAS BASED ON THE VIEW THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE OFFICER'S RETIREMENT WAS SEPTEMBER 10, 1949, THE DATE THE FINDINGS OF THE DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD WERE APPROVED. HE WAS RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY IN 1944. HOWEVER, IN THE SIMILAR CASE OF UPDIKE V. UNITED STATES, 132 C.1CLS. 627, THE COURT TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PLAINTIFF BECAME ENTITLED TO RETIRED PAY AT THE TIME OF HIS RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY EVEN THOUGH THE FACTS WHICH QUALIFIED HIM FOR RETIRED PAY WERE NOT DETERMINED BY THE PROPER AUTHORITY UNTIL A LATER DATE, WHEN HE WAS PLACED ON THE TEMPORARY DISABILITY RETIREMENT LIST. OUR DECISION IN 36 COMP. GEN. 516, WAS BASED ON THE UPDIKE CASE, IT HAVING BEEN DECIDED THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW THAT CASE. 36 COMP. GEN. 210. SINCE SUCH ACTION WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THAT PART OF THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN 31 COMP. GEN. 78, WHICH ARE MENTIONED ABOVE, SUCH VIEWS NO LONGER ARE BEING FOLLOWED. COMPARE DECISION TO YOU, 37 COMP. GEN. 852.

THE PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO INCREASES IN RETIRED PAY FOR DUTY PERFORMED AFTER RETIREMENT, WHICH WERE IN EFFECT DURING THE DIFFERENT PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED BY COLONEL JORDAN, AFTER AUGUST 31, 1944, AUTHORIZED INCREASES FOR ALL "ACTIVE DUTY" PERFORMED AFTER RETIREMENT IN THE COMPUTATION OF LONGEVITY PAY AND PAY PERIODS. SEE SECTION 15 OF THE PAY READJUSTMENT ACT OF 1942, 56 STAT. 367, 37 U.S.C. 115. AFTER CREDITING HIM WITH ALL PERIODS OF ACTIVE DUTY PERFORMED AFTER AUGUST 31, 1944, HE STILL HAS LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF SERVICE.

WHILE THE COURT OF CLAIMS HAS ALLOWED CREDIT FOR BOTH INACTIVE AND ACTIVE SERVICE PERFORMED AFTER RETIREMENT, AND AN INCREASE IN RETIRED PAY BASED ON THE PAY OF THE RANK TO WHICH A MEMBER HAS BEEN PROMOTED WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY AFTER RETIREMENT, IN CASES WHERE IT HAS DEVELOPED ITS ,RE- RETIREMENT" CONCEPT--- SEE FOR EXAMPLE GORDON V. UNITED STATES, 134 C.1CLS. 840, AND BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 134 C.1CLS. 471--- NO CASE HAS BEEN FOUND IN WHICH THE "RETIREMENT" CONCEPT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN A SITUATION COMPARABLE TO THAT HERE INVOLVED. TO THE CONTRARY, THE COURT HELD IN THE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR CASE OF KILBANKS V. UNITED STATES, C.1CLS. NO. 50306, DECIDED JULY 12, 1957, THAT---

THUS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DISABILITY REVIEW BOARD PARTLY CORRECTED THE ERROR BY PLACING THE PLAINTIFF ON THE RETIRED LIST WITH PAY AS OF JULY 1, 1951. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT ABOVE CITED, COMPLETED THE CORRECTION BY PAYING PLAINTIFF THE AMOUNT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DUE HIM HAD HE BEEN CERTIFIED IMMEDIATELY UPON RELIEF FROM ACTIVE DUTY ON AUGUST 7, 1946. IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT IF PLAINTIFF IS "PUT IN THE SAME POSITION HE WOULD BE IN HAD THE ERRONEOUS DETERMINATION NOT HAVE BEEN MADE," HE WOULD BE PUT IN THE POSITION OF A SECOND LIEUTENANT RETIRED FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY INCURRED AS AN INCIDENT TO SERVICE. SINCE AUGUST 7, 1946, EXCEPT FOR THE TIME SPENT ON RECALL TO ACTIVE DUTY, FOR WHICH HE APPARENTLY HAS BEEN PAID, PLAINTIFF HAS BEEN PAID THE RETIRED PAY OF A SECOND LIEUTENANT RETIRED FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY, WHICH, UNDER THE DECISIONS ABOVE CITED, IS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DUE HIM.

THE PLAINTIFF IN THAT CASE WAS PROMOTED TO FIRST LIEUTENANT WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY AFTER AUGUST 7, 1946, AND CLAIMED THE RETIRED PAY OF A FIRST LIEUTENANT.

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 21, 1958, CORRECTLY READJUSTED COLONEL JORDAN'S RETIRED PAY TO REFLECT HIS ENTITLEMENT TO THE RETIRED PAY OF A MAJOR WITH OVER 18 YEARS' BUT LESS THAN 21 YEARS' SERVICE, FOR THE PERIODS HE WAS ENTITLED TO RETIRED PAY BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1, 1944, AND FEBRUARY 28, 1957.

ACCORDINGLY, PAYMENT ON THE VOUCHER ACCOMPANYING YOUR REQUEST FOR DECISION IS NOT AUTHORIZED AND SUCH VOUCHER WILL BE RETAINED HERE.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs