Skip to Highlights
Highlights

USMC: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 5. WE WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR CASE HAD BEEN REVIEWED AND THAT IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE MARINE CORPS THAT THE CHECK AGE WAS PROPER. YOUR CLAIM THEN WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 27. SUCH ACTION WAS REVIEWED. YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. YOU SAY THAT ANY CLERK COULD HAVE ADDED YOUR NAME TO THE LIST OF MEMBERS REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE IN LIEU OF ORDERS. YOUR FIRST CONTENTION WAS FULLY CONSIDERED WHEN THE DECISION OF MARCH 29. WAS RENDERED. WAS NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW OF THE ORDERS TO DUTY OVERSEAS BEFORE YOUR DEPENDENTS COMMENCED TRAVEL FROM WASHINGTON.

View Decision

B-126398, AUG. 7, 1956

TO MASTER SERGEANT RAY F. ADAMS, USMC:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF JULY 5, 1956, RELATIVE TO YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF THE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM YOU AS THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED YOUR DEPENDENTS FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AND RETURN.

WHEN YOU FILED YOUR CLAIM HERE WE REFERRED IT TO THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS FOR EXAMINATION AND REPORT. IN REPLY, WE WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR CASE HAD BEEN REVIEWED AND THAT IT WAS THE OPINION OF THE MARINE CORPS THAT THE CHECK AGE WAS PROPER. YOUR CLAIM THEN WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 27, 1952. UPON YOUR REQUEST,HOWEVER, SUCH ACTION WAS REVIEWED, AND BY OUR DECISION DATED MARCH 29, 1956, B-126398, YOU WERE ADVISED THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. YOUR PRESENT LETTER YOU AGAIN SAY YOU DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF ORDERS TO DUTY OVERSEAS UNTIL AUGUST 8, 1951; ALSO, YOU SAY THAT ANY CLERK COULD HAVE ADDED YOUR NAME TO THE LIST OF MEMBERS REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE IN LIEU OF ORDERS.

YOUR FIRST CONTENTION WAS FULLY CONSIDERED WHEN THE DECISION OF MARCH 29, 1956, WAS RENDERED, AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW OF THE ORDERS TO DUTY OVERSEAS BEFORE YOUR DEPENDENTS COMMENCED TRAVEL FROM WASHINGTON, D.C. YOUR SECOND CONTENTION IS, OF COURSE, CONJECTURAL IN NATURE, AND DOES NOT OVERCOME THE SIGNIFICANCE WHICH REASONABLY MAY BE ATTACHED TO THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO INSTRUCTIONS TO PERSONNEL OF HMR-161 THAT IF THEY DESIRED SUCH A CERTIFICATE IN LIEU OF ORDERS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS, IT WOULD BE PREPARED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS REASONABLY CERTAIN THAT YOUR NAME WAS PLACED ON THE CERTIFICATE AT YOUR REQUEST.

SINCE YOUR LETTER AFFORDS NO BASIS FOR MODIFICATION OF OUR PRIOR ACTION IN THE MATTER, THE DECISION OF MARCH 29, 1956, IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts