B-158090, DEC. 22, 1965
Highlights
WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $99.66 WHICH IN MAY 1962 WAS DEDUCTED FROM YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT INCIDENT TO THE TERMINATION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON JANUARY 15. THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE TO SATISFY AN OVERPAYMENT OF SALARY RESULTING FROM THE ERRONEOUS GRANTING OF A PERIODIC STEP INCREASE IN OCTOBER 1961. YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IF H.R. 10002 WHICH COVERED THE OVERPAYMENT HERE INVOLVED AND WAS ENACTED AS PUB.L. 87-871. WAS APPROVED. YOU ALSO SAY THAT AT THE TIME THE BILL WAS APPROVED YOU WERE SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AT THULE AIR FORCE BASE. PROVIDES IN PART THAT: "* * * ANY EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE WHO HAS AT ANY TIME MADE REPAYMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF ANY AMOUNT PAID TO HIM * * * IS ENTITLED TO HAVE REFUNDED TO HIM THE AMOUNT REPAID PROVIDED APPLICATION IS MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR.'.
B-158090, DEC. 22, 1965
TO MR. JEROME SOBEL:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 18, 1965, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 9, 1965, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $99.66 WHICH IN MAY 1962 WAS DEDUCTED FROM YOUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT INCIDENT TO THE TERMINATION OF YOUR GOVERNMENT SERVICE ON JANUARY 15, 1962, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NEW YORK NAVAL SHIPYARD.
THE DEDUCTION WAS MADE TO SATISFY AN OVERPAYMENT OF SALARY RESULTING FROM THE ERRONEOUS GRANTING OF A PERIODIC STEP INCREASE IN OCTOBER 1961. YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IF H.R. 10002 WHICH COVERED THE OVERPAYMENT HERE INVOLVED AND WAS ENACTED AS PUB.L. 87-871, WAS APPROVED, THE AMOUNT WOULD BE REFUNDED TO YOU WITHOUT ANY ACTION ON YOUR PART. YOU ALSO SAY THAT AT THE TIME THE BILL WAS APPROVED YOU WERE SERVING IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AT THULE AIR FORCE BASE, GREENLAND, AND, THEREFORE, DID NOT KNOW OF ITS ENACTMENT.
PUB.L. 87-871, 76 STAT. 1162, APPROVED OCTOBER 23, 1962, PROVIDES IN PART THAT:
"* * * ANY EMPLOYEE OR FORMER EMPLOYEE WHO HAS AT ANY TIME MADE REPAYMENT TO THE UNITED STATES OF ANY AMOUNT PAID TO HIM * * * IS ENTITLED TO HAVE REFUNDED TO HIM THE AMOUNT REPAID PROVIDED APPLICATION IS MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR.'
THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU FILED A CLAIM FOR REFUND BY LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1965, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE PERIOD ALLOWED BY THE ACT. THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THE TIME LIMITATION FOR FILING CLAIMS. THE LIMITATION ON THE TIME FOR FILING YOUR APPLICATION PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT CONSTITUTES A STATUTE OF LIMITATION AND IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE RIGHT TO HAVE YOUR CLAIM CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT CONCERNED AND OUR OFFICE. COMPARE BARTLESVILLE ZINC COMPANY V. MELLON, 56 F.2D 154. EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF THE PERTINENT LIMITATION IN THE STATUTE WE MAY NOT GRANT ANY EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH YOUR APPLICATION MAY BE FILED. CF. DION V. UNITED STATES, 137 CT.CL. 166.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM WAS PROPER AND IS SUSTAINED.