B-140791, FEB. 25, 1960
Highlights
ATTORNEY AT LAW: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7. COMMANDER WALLING'S CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED IN CLAIMS DIVISION. THAT ACTION WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION TO YOU. WHO IS PLAINTIFF NO. 3 IN THE CASE OF WALTER E. THE REASONS WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER TO YOU. NO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RETIRED PAY IS FOUND DUE HIM.
B-140791, FEB. 25, 1960
TO MR. FRANZ O. WILLENBUCHER, ATTORNEY AT LAW:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1959, IN WHICH YOU REQUEST, AS ATTORNEY FOR LIEUTENANT COMMANDER EZROM S. WALLING, UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE, RETIRED, FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF HIS CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL RETIRED PAY. COMMANDER WALLING'S CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED IN CLAIMS DIVISION, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 9, 1959, AND THAT ACTION WAS SUSTAINED IN OUR DECISION TO YOU, B-140791, NOVEMBER 27, 1959.
THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE AS TO THE OPERATION AND EFFECT OF SECTION 402 (I) OF THE CAREER COMPENSATION ACT OF 1949, 63 STAT. 820, WITH RESPECT TO OFFICERS OF THE NAVAL RESERVE APPEARS TO BE IDENTICAL TO THAT PRESENTED BY COMMANDER ROBERT S. RAYMOND, UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE, RETIRED, WHO IS PLAINTIFF NO. 3 IN THE CASE OF WALTER E. ANDREWS, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, C.CLS. 240-58, A MATTER NOW PENDING IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. YOU REFER IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 7, 1959, TO COMMANDER RAYMOND'S CASE AND CALL OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMMENTS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 4, 1959, ADDRESSED TO US IN BEHALF OF COMMANDER RAYMOND AND REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THAT CLAIM.
THE REASONS WHICH ARE SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER TO YOU, B-136453, DATED TODAY, IN THE RAYMOND CASE APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE TO COMMANDER WALLING'S CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, NO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RETIRED PAY IS FOUND DUE HIM.