B-105517, SEP. 12, 1960
Highlights
USA PAK: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 23. AS PERTAINING TO AN OFFICER WITH DEPENDENTS WHEREAS YOU WERE AN OFFICER WITHOUT DEPENDENTS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT REOPEN THE SETTLEMENT OR REVERSE A DECISION MADE BY A PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE EXCEPT UPON THE PRODUCTION OF NEWLY DISCOVERED AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR TO CORRECT MISTAKES OF FACT OR ERRORS IN CALCULATION OR FOR FRAUD OR COLLUSION. THERE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT MATTER ANY CORRECTION OF A MISTAKE IN FACT OR ERROR IN CALCULATION OR THE PRODUCTION OF NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE. THIS OFFICE IS PRECLUDED IN GIVING CONSIDERATION TO YOUR LETTER.
B-105517, SEP. 12, 1960
TO MAJOR BRADY J. VRADENBURG, TC, USA PAK:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 23, 1960, IN WHICH YOU REFER TO LETTER OF THIS OFFICE, B-105517, DATED FEBRUARY 26, 1954, WHICH ADVISED YOU THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF OFFICE DECISION OF JULY 18, 1952, B-105517, SIGNED BY THE THEN ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL, CONTAINED NO NEW OR MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO WARRANT FURTHER OR DIFFERENT ACTION THAN THAT PREVIOUSLY TAKEN. THE DECISION OF JULY 18, 1952, SUSTAINED OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 8, 1951, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR RENTAL ALLOWANCE AS FOR AN OFFICER WITHOUT DEPENDENTS FOR ONE DAY, JANUARY 15, 1944.
YOUR PRESENT LETTER, DATED MORE THAN SIX YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTION REFERRED TO ABOVE, PURPORTS TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF JULY 18, 1952, AS PERTAINING TO AN OFFICER WITH DEPENDENTS WHEREAS YOU WERE AN OFFICER WITHOUT DEPENDENTS. YOU THEREFORE REQUEST RECONSIDERATION AND REVISION OF THAT DECISION.
IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT REOPEN THE SETTLEMENT OR REVERSE A DECISION MADE BY A PREDECESSOR IN OFFICE EXCEPT UPON THE PRODUCTION OF NEWLY DISCOVERED AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR TO CORRECT MISTAKES OF FACT OR ERRORS IN CALCULATION OR FOR FRAUD OR COLLUSION. SEE UNITED STATES V. BANK OF METROPOLIS, 15 PET.377, 401; NOBLE V. UNION RIVER LOGGING R.R. COMPANY, 147 U.S. 165; LAVELETTE V. UNITED STATES, 1 CT.CL. 147; JACKSON V. UNITED STATES, 19 CT.CL. 504; COTTON V. UNITED STATES, 29 CT.CL. 207; 11 COMP. DEC. 459; 16 COMP. GEN. 51, AND 17 ID. 516.
THERE IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT MATTER ANY CORRECTION OF A MISTAKE IN FACT OR ERROR IN CALCULATION OR THE PRODUCTION OF NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS OFFICE IS PRECLUDED IN GIVING CONSIDERATION TO YOUR LETTER.