B-141006: Jul 18, 1962

YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT MR. IS NOT BINDING IN HIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT SUCH ELECTIONS ARE NOT BINDING IF BASED UPON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION FURNISHED TO THE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT. WHILE WE HAVE AGREED TO FOLLOW THAT RULE. YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO INFORMATION WHICH SHOWS THAT IT IS APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. AS WAS POIN...

B-141006: Aug 04, 1961

LAW OFFICES: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 12. HAMRICK IS PLAINTIFF NO. 1 IN THE CASE OF HAMRICK. WAS FILED IN DECEMBER 1960 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE MOTION TO DISMISS REMAINS IN ESCROW. A JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED ON JANUARY 5. WAS BASED ON A STIPULATION AGREEMENT COVERING THE PERIOD MAY 19. IS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA. WAS BASED ON INFORMATION S...

B-141006: May 25, 1962

NAVY FINANCE CENTER: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 19. WHICH YOU SAY ARE SIMILAR TO MR. YOU REQUESTED ADVICE AS TO WHETHER YOU ARE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS OF LETTER OF AUGUST 4. ARE NO LONGER TO BE FOLLOWED. THAT IS. UNDER THE SELIGA RULE DURING THE 5-YEAR PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ACT DURING WHICH HE MIGHT HAVE CHANGED HIS OPTION. HE O...