B-165705, JAN. 3, 1969
Highlights
VDA DE DAMO: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR RECENT LETTER RECEIVED HERE NOVEMBER 15. THOSE ALLOWANCES ARE CLAIMED INCIDENT TO HIS SERVICE AS A PHILIPPINE SCOUT FROM DECEMBER 8. OUR FILE SHOWS THAT THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF LETTERS FROM OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED APRIL 18. EACH OF WHICH ADVISED THAT CONSIDERATION OF YOUR HUSBAND'S CLAIM FOR SUCH ALLOWANCES WAS BARRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9. WHICH AGENCY YOU STATE IS A PART OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IS NOT AN AGENCY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. BOTH ARE SEPARATE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SUCH ALLOWANCES WERE PAYABLE TO ENLISTED MEN ONLY "WHERE QUARTERS AND RATIONS IN KIND ARE NOT NISHED.'.
B-165705, JAN. 3, 1969
TO MRS. BERSABE G. VDA DE DAMO:
FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR RECENT LETTER RECEIVED HERE NOVEMBER 15, 1968, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR SUBSISTENCE AND QUARTERS ALLOWANCES ON BEHALF OF YOUR HUSBAND, THE LATE CLAUDINIANO R. DAMO. THOSE ALLOWANCES ARE CLAIMED INCIDENT TO HIS SERVICE AS A PHILIPPINE SCOUT FROM DECEMBER 8, 1941, TO MARCH 1945.
OUR FILE SHOWS THAT THIS MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF LETTERS FROM OUR CLAIMS DIVISION DATED APRIL 18, 1968, TO NICOLAS B. ESTACIO. COMMANDER, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, MCKINLEY POST NO. 2, MAKATI, RIZAL (WHICH ORGANIZATION WROTE ON BEHALF OF YOUR HUSBAND) AND LETTERS TO YOU DATED JUNE 11, 1968, AND SEPTEMBER 5, 1968, EACH OF WHICH ADVISED THAT CONSIDERATION OF YOUR HUSBAND'S CLAIM FOR SUCH ALLOWANCES WAS BARRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, CH. 788, 54 STAT. 1061, 31 U.S.C. 71A. YOU CONTEND THAT YOUR HUSBAND MADE A CLAIM FOR BENEFITS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN 1947, WHICH AGENCY YOU STATE IS A PART OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, AND THAT SUCH A FILING SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1940 STATUTE.
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IS NOT AN AGENCY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; BOTH ARE SEPARATE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. HENCE, A CLAIM FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OR ANY AGENCY OTHER THAN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1940 BARRING ACT.
IT WOULD ALSO APPEAR THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BARRING ACT, A RIGHT TO THE CLAIMED ALLOWANCES IN LIEU OF QUARTERS AND SUBSISTENCE NEVER EXISTED IN YOUR HUSBAND'S CASE. PURSUANT TO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 9206, JULY 27, 1942, CITED BY YOU, SUCH ALLOWANCES WERE PAYABLE TO ENLISTED MEN ONLY "WHERE QUARTERS AND RATIONS IN KIND ARE NOT NISHED.' UNDER THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME, PAYMENT OF SUCH ALLOWANCES WAS NOT AUTHORIZED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTEMPORANEOUSLY ISSUED ORDER DIRECTING SUCH PAYMENT. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RECORD WHICH SHOWS THAT YOUR HUSBAND WAS GIVEN SUCH AN ORDER.
FURTHER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ALLOWANCES IN LIEU OF RATIONS AND QUARTERS IN KIND ARE IN THE NATURE OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED. SOLDIERS IN THE FIELD, AS IN THE CASE OF YOUR HUSBAND, NORMALLY DO NOT INCUR SUCH EXPENSES AS THEY ARE FED AND QUARTERED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH ISSUED ORDERS, IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT HE WAS BEING FURNISHED RATIONS AND QUARTERS IN KIND TO THE EXTENT THAT THEN WARTIME CONDITIONS PERMITTED.
ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN YOUR HUSBAND'S CASE IS SUSTAINED.