B-145712, SEP. 21, 1964
Highlights
IT IS APPARENT THEREFROM THAT YOU WAITED A CONSIDERABLE TIME BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR CLAIM. UPON RECEIPT OF YOUR CLAIM STEPS WERE TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY BASIS EXISTED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. THE RECORD SHOWS THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DOUBT IN THE MATTER BUT EVENTUALLY AFTER FULL VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS AND THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IT WAS DETERMINED THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS ALLOWABLE. WAS ISSUED IN DUE COURSE AND PAYMENT MADE TO YOU FOR THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE DELAY IN DISPOSING OF YOUR CLAIM WAS THE RESULT OF NUMEROUS FACTORS. WE PREVIOUSLY INFORMED YOU THAT THE RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION INTEREST DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.
B-145712, SEP. 21, 1964
TO PROFESSOR K. J. DEJUHASZ:
YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 24, 1964, PROTESTS OUR DECISION B-145712 OF JUNE 2, 1964, SUSTAINING SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 22, 1963, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6 PERCENT ON THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ALLOWED FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 15, 1953 TO OCTOBER 24, 1959, BY SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 23, 1963. IN YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM FOR INTEREST DATED JULY 5, 1963, AS WELL AS YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED AUGUST 24, 1964, YOU CONTEND THAT INTEREST SHOULD BE PAID BECAUSE OF THE CONSIDERABLE DELAY THAT RESULTED IN THE ALLOWANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON JUNE 9, 1961, YOU MADE CLAIM FOR THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 9, 1953 TO OCTOBER 24, 1959, DURING WHICH PERIOD YOU SERVED OVERSEAS PART OF THE TIME AND IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES FOR THE REMAINDER THEREOF. THE CLAIM FIRST AROSE UPON YOUR REEMPLOYMENT MARCH 9, 1953. IT IS APPARENT THEREFROM THAT YOU WAITED A CONSIDERABLE TIME BEFORE YOU MADE YOUR CLAIM, I.E., 1953 TO 1961. HOWEVER, UPON RECEIPT OF YOUR CLAIM STEPS WERE TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY BASIS EXISTED FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM. THE RECORD SHOWS THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE DOUBT IN THE MATTER BUT EVENTUALLY AFTER FULL VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS AND THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IT WAS DETERMINED THAT YOUR CLAIM WAS ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 23, 1963, WAS ISSUED IN DUE COURSE AND PAYMENT MADE TO YOU FOR THE AMOUNT FOUND DUE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE DELAY IN DISPOSING OF YOUR CLAIM WAS THE RESULT OF NUMEROUS FACTORS.
YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 24, 1964, DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION NOT ALREADY CONSIDERED BY US. WE PREVIOUSLY INFORMED YOU THAT THE RULE IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION INTEREST DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN SMYTH V. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 329, AT PAGE 353, SAID:
"* * * THE RULE IS ESTABLISHED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRACT OR STATUTE EVINCING A CONTRARY INTENTION, INTEREST DOES NOT RUN UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT EVEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL. U.S. EX REL ANGARICA V. BAYARD, 127 U.S. 251; UNITED STATES V. NORTH CAROLINA, 136 U.S. 211; UNITED STATES V. NORTH AMERICAN T. AND T.CO., 253 U.S. 330, 336; SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. V. UNITED STATES, 261 U.S. 299, 304. * * *"
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REFERRED- TO RULE AND IN VIEW ALSO OF THE FACT THAT NO STATUTE EXISTS PROVIDING FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST UPON SETTLEMENTS OF OUR OFFICE WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR ALLOWING YOU THE INTEREST CLAIMED. THEREFORE, OUR DECISION B-145712 OF JUNE 2, 1964, IS AFFIRMED.