B-142724, MAR. 16, 1967
Highlights
WHICH YOU SAY CAUSED THE TERMINATION OF YOUR ELIGIBILITY FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS DURING A PERIOD YOUR HOME WAS LEASED "WITH OPTION TO BUY.'. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT OUR PRACTICE TO RECONSIDER A DECISION OF THIS OFFICE AT THE REQUEST OF A PARTY OTHER THAN THE PERSON TO WHOM IT WAS RENDERED. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT OUR LETTER OF JUNE 2. WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICER TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED WAS INFORMED THAT SINCE THE CLAIM THERE INVOLVED HAD NOT BEEN REFERRED TO US AS UNCOLLECTIBLE IT WAS "A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.'. WERE ADVISORY ONLY AND WERE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN THAT CASE APPEARED TO COME "WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BROAD DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY" UNDER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS.
B-142724, MAR. 16, 1967
TO SERGEANT MAJOR FRANK A. POSTHUMA, JR.:
THERE HAS BEEN FORWARDED HERE BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION, SETTLEMENTS OPERATIONS, FINANCE CENTER, U.S. ARMY, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, YOUR LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 20, 1966, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF WHAT YOU REFER TO AS OUR "DECISION" B-142724 OF JUNE 2, 1960, WHICH YOU SAY CAUSED THE TERMINATION OF YOUR ELIGIBILITY FOR MORTGAGE INSURANCE PREMIUMS DURING A PERIOD YOUR HOME WAS LEASED "WITH OPTION TO BUY.'
IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT OUR PRACTICE TO RECONSIDER A DECISION OF THIS OFFICE AT THE REQUEST OF A PARTY OTHER THAN THE PERSON TO WHOM IT WAS RENDERED, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT OUR LETTER OF JUNE 2, 1960, B- 142724, COPY ENCLOSED, WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL DECISION OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. YOU WILL NOTE THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICER TO WHOM IT WAS ADDRESSED WAS INFORMED THAT SINCE THE CLAIM THERE INVOLVED HAD NOT BEEN REFERRED TO US AS UNCOLLECTIBLE IT WAS "A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.'
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE LETTER OF JUNE 2, 1960, WERE ADVISORY ONLY AND WERE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN THAT CASE APPEARED TO COME "WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BROAD DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY" UNDER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND REGULATIONS. LIKEWISE THE ACTION IN YOUR CASE WAS TAKEN IN THE EXERCISE OF A LEGALLY AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION, NOT AS A RESULT OF OUR LETTER OF JUNE 2, 1960, AND WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE DETERMINATION SO MADE.