B-158291, JUN. 30, 1967
Highlights
BOND: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS DATED JUNE 2 AND 17. THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 3. ON THREE OCCASIONS THAT SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AT YOUR REQUEST AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION WAS SUSTAINED. YOU AGAIN ASK WHY PAYMENT IS NOT MADE. THE FIRST CLAIM WE RECEIVED FROM YOU WAS DATED FEBRUARY 18. HENCE YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THIS OFFICE WAS PRECLUDED FROM CONSIDERING THAT CLAIM. WE WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS GIVEN PROPER CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME AND THAT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE EITHER NOT VALID. THAT PROPER PAYMENT WAS MADE.'. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WHICH ONLY QUESTIONS PREVIOUS RULINGS OR IS A REPETITION OF PREVIOUS DEMANDS SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE.
B-158291, JUN. 30, 1967
TO MR. THOMAS O. BOND:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTERS DATED JUNE 2 AND 17, 1967, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR AMOUNTS BELIEVED DUE IN THE CASE OF NELSON BOND, YOUR GRANDFATHER, WHO YOU STATE DIED FROM WOUNDS RECEIVED WHILE SERVING AS A VOLUNTEER IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE CIVIL WAR.
THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT DATED MARCH 3, 1965, WHICH DENIED YOUR CLAIM. ON THREE OCCASIONS THAT SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AT YOUR REQUEST AND THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION WAS SUSTAINED. EACH DECISION SUSTAINING THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL THE REASONS WHY YOUR CLAIM COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THIS OFFICE.
IN SPITE OF THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN YOU, YOU AGAIN ASK WHY PAYMENT IS NOT MADE. IN OUR LAST DECISION TO YOU, B-158291 DATED DECEMBER 20, 1966, WE EXPLAINED AS FOLLOWS:
"* * * WE ADVISED YOU THAT THE ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1911, 37 STAT. 47, 49, PROVIDED THAT ANY CLAIMS FOR PAY, BOUNTY OR OTHER ALLOWANCES INCIDENT TO MILITARY SERVICE IN THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES DURING THE CIVIL WAR NOT MADE BEFORE DECEMBER 31, 1912, WOULD BE FOREVER BARRED. THE FIRST CLAIM WE RECEIVED FROM YOU WAS DATED FEBRUARY 18, 1965, AND HENCE YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THIS OFFICE WAS PRECLUDED FROM CONSIDERING THAT CLAIM.
"YOU NOW SAY THAT YOUR MOTHER, MALINDA BOND, THE DAUGHTER OF NELSON BOND, MADE A CLAIM IN 1901, OR 1902 AT THE LATEST, AND REQUEST FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM. EVEN IF IT COULD BE ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR MOTHER ACTUALLY FILED A CLAIM OVER 60 YEARS AGO AS YOU SAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT SUCH CLAIM WAS GIVEN PROPER CONSIDERATION AT THAT TIME AND THAT IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE EITHER NOT VALID, OR IF VALID, THAT PROPER PAYMENT WAS MADE.'
YOUR LETTERS OF JUNE 2 AND 17, 1967, PRESENT NO NEW EVIDENCE WHICH WARRANTS ANY CHANGE IN THE ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT APPEARS THAT FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE WHICH ONLY QUESTIONS PREVIOUS RULINGS OR IS A REPETITION OF PREVIOUS DEMANDS SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE. THEREFORE, ANY SUCH CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED FROM YOU IN THE FUTURE WILL BE FILED WITHOUT REPLY.