Skip to Highlights
Highlights

WINBORN: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 6. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 11. THE SETTLEMENT ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 3 AND 29. YOU DO NOT BASE YOUR PRESENT REQUEST UPON ANY NEW FACTS BUT UPON YOUR OPINION THAT WE HAVE BEEN MISCONSTRUING THE ACT OF OCTOBER 14. ARE CORRECT AND THAT THE ACT OF OCTOBER 14. YOUR RESERVE COMMISSION DID NOT SUPERSEDE OR AFFECT THE AUS COMMISSION UNDER WHICH YOU WERE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY AND A PERSON IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACTIVE-DUTY PAY UNDER A RESERVE COMMISSION UNTIL HE HAS BEEN PUT ON ACTIVE DUTY UNDER THAT COMMISSION. WE AGAIN MUST ADVISE YOU THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH YOUR CLAIM MAY BE ALLOWED.

View Decision

B-126784, APR. 23, 1956

TO MR. JAMES E. WINBORN:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 6, 1956, REQUESTING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN ACTIVE-DUTY PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF A MAJOR AND A LIEUTENANT COLONEL FOR THE PERIOD FROM MAY 26, 1947, TO JUNE 16, 1948.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY SETTLEMENT DATED JANUARY 11, 1956, AND THE SETTLEMENT ACTION WAS SUSTAINED BY DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 3 AND 29, 1956, B -126784.

YOU DO NOT BASE YOUR PRESENT REQUEST UPON ANY NEW FACTS BUT UPON YOUR OPINION THAT WE HAVE BEEN MISCONSTRUING THE ACT OF OCTOBER 14, 1942, 56 STAT. 787, 10 U.S.C. 558.

WHILE APPRECIATING YOUR FEELINGS, WE BELIEVE THAT OUR DECISIONS ON THIS SUBJECT, INCLUDING THE TWO DECISIONS ON YOUR CLAIM, ARE CORRECT AND THAT THE ACT OF OCTOBER 14, 1942, HAS NO PERTINENCY IN THIS MATTER. BASICALLY, YOUR RESERVE COMMISSION DID NOT SUPERSEDE OR AFFECT THE AUS COMMISSION UNDER WHICH YOU WERE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY AND A PERSON IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACTIVE-DUTY PAY UNDER A RESERVE COMMISSION UNTIL HE HAS BEEN PUT ON ACTIVE DUTY UNDER THAT COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, WE AGAIN MUST ADVISE YOU THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH YOUR CLAIM MAY BE ALLOWED.

GAO Contacts