Skip to Highlights
Highlights

RETIRED: FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 7. THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT IN SETTLEMENT MADE IN OCTOBER 1958 CREDIT FOR $896.66 FOR 60 DAYS' TERMINAL LEAVE WAS INCLUDED WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE YOU HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR THE MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS' LEAVE IN DECEMBER 1956. WHEREAS CREDIT FOR THAT PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE MONTHLY RATE OF $16.67. 002.90 WAS REDUCED TO $750.83 BY THE CREDIT OF UNDERPAYMENTS FOUND DUE YOU IN THE AMOUNT OF $283.78. IS SUCH A SPECIFIC PROVISION OF LAW AND IS LIMITED TO THE MATTER OF "DUAL COMPENSATION. THE INDEBTEDNESS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOUR RETIRED PAY INVOLVED NO DUAL COMPENSATION AND REPRESENTED A SIMPLE OVERPAYMENT RESULTING FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT.

View Decision

B-155995, FEB. 10, 1965

TO FIRST LIEUTENANT MELECIO P. ALBERTO, AUS, RETIRED:

FURTHER REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 7, 1965, IN EFFECT REQUESTING REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION, DATED AUGUST 13, 1964, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF $750.83 DEDUCTED FROM YOUR RETIRED PAY TO LIQUIDATE YOUR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE UNITED STATES ON ACCOUNT OF OVERPAYMENTS MADE TO YOU IN SETTLEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 29, 1957, PUB.L. 85-217, 71 STAT. 491.

THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT IN SETTLEMENT MADE IN OCTOBER 1958 CREDIT FOR $896.66 FOR 60 DAYS' TERMINAL LEAVE WAS INCLUDED WHICH WAS ERRONEOUS BECAUSE YOU HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY PAID FOR THE MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS' LEAVE IN DECEMBER 1956. THE SETTLEMENT ALSO INCLUDED FOREIGN SERVICE PAY AT THE RATE OF $20 PER MONTH FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 29, 1942, THROUGH FEBRUARY 25, 1945, WHEREAS CREDIT FOR THAT PERIOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT THE MONTHLY RATE OF $16.67, RESULTING IN AN ADDITIONAL OVERPAYMENT OF $106.24. THE COMBINED OVERPAYMENT OF $1,002.90 WAS REDUCED TO $750.83 BY THE CREDIT OF UNDERPAYMENTS FOUND DUE YOU IN THE AMOUNT OF $283.78.

IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO THE CONTRARY, STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DO NOT RUN AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1954, CH. 1035, 63 STAT. 890, 31 U.S.C. 237A (QUOTED IN SETTLEMENT DATED AUGUST 13, 1964, AND IN OUR DECISION OF OCTOBER 23, 1963, B-151263, ON WHICH YOU RELY), IS SUCH A SPECIFIC PROVISION OF LAW AND IS LIMITED TO THE MATTER OF "DUAL COMPENSATION," A TERM RELATING TO COMPENSATION UNDER TWO OFFICES OR EMPLOYMENTS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE INDEBTEDNESS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOUR RETIRED PAY INVOLVED NO DUAL COMPENSATION AND REPRESENTED A SIMPLE OVERPAYMENT RESULTING FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT. HENCE, YOUR CASE DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 28, 1954, AND CONSEQUENTLY THE TIME OF RECEIPT OF THE OVERPAYMENTS BY YOU HAS NO BEARING ON YOUR LIABILITY TO REPAY THE AMOUNT INVOLVED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO COLLECT THE AMOUNT OVERPAID YOU WAS PROPER AND THERE IS NO AUTHORITY OF LAW FOR REFUND TO YOU OF THE AMOUNT SO COLLECTED. THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 13, 1964, IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts