B-86001 (A), I-17000-15426, FEB. 27, 1957

B-86001 (A), I-17000-15426, FEB. 27, 1957

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO LETTER OF JUNE 5, 1956, WITH ENCLOSURES, FROM THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, CONCERNING PAYMENTS OF RENTAL AND SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES MADE TO LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ROBERT C. ALEXANDER, III, U.S. NAVY, 266628-1100, AS AN OFFICER WITH A DEPENDENT MOTHER DURING THE PERIOD JULY 28, 1943, TO AUGUST 7, 1948.

THE PAYMENTS WERE QUESTIONED IN A REPORT OF AN INVESTIGATION MADE BY OUR REPRESENTATIVES WHICH INDICATED THAT LIEUTENANT COMMANDER ALEXANDER'S MOTHER WAS NOT IN FACT DEPENDENT ON HIM FOR CHIEF SUPPORT AS REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE STATUTE. A COPY OF THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WAS REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FOR COLLECTION ON NOVEMBER 17, 1950. IN OUR LETTER OF APRIL 6, 1956, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION WERE UNAUTHORIZED AND THE ASSISTANCE OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT WAS REQUESTED IN RECOVERY OF THEM.

ACCOMPANYING THE LETTER OF JUNE 5, 1956, IS A COPY OF A STATEMENT DATED MAY 2, 1956, OF THE DEBTOR ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF OF NAVAL PERSONNEL, WHEREIN THE DEBTOR STATES THAT IT WAS HIS IMPRESSION THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN ADJUSTED IN JANUARY 1952 AT WHICH TIME HE VISITED THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. THE DEBTOR CANNOT RECALL THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE CONTACTED, BUT STATES THAT HE WAS ADVISED OF THE NATURE OF CORROBATIVE EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DEPENDENCY OF HIS MOTHER AND THAT AFFIDAVITS WERE PREPARED AND SIGNED BY HIS MOTHER AND HIMSELF, WHICH, WITH STATEMENTS OF OTHER PERSONS TENDING TO SUPPORT THE AFFIDAVITS, WERE SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 31, 1952, TO THE SAME OFFICIAL OF OUR OFFICE THAT HE HAD SEEN EARLIER. HE STATES ALSO THAT HE WAS TOLD HE WOULD BE ADVISED AT A LATER DATE OF THE DETERMINATION MADE, UPON EXAMINATION OF THE SUBMITTED MATERIAL AND THAT HE HEARD NOTHING FURTHER UNTIL ADVISED OF OUR LETTER OF APRIL 5, 1956. THE OFFICER DEBTOR INVITES ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT NO MENTION IS MADE, IN OUR LETTER OF APRIL 5, 1956, TO THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED IN 1952, AND HE REQUESTS TO BE ADVISED, IF THE MATERIAL WAS CONSIDERED, WHEREIN IT IS DEFICIENT. HE ALSO STATES THAT IF THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN MISLAID OR MISFILED, THE RESUBMISSION WOULD BE DIFFICULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, IN VIEW OF THE LAPSE OF TIME.

A THOROUGH SEARCH HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE THE DATA STATED TO HAVE BEEN DELIVERED HERE, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION OR A RECORD OF THEIR RECEIPT IN THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING THE PRESENT UNAVAILABILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES REMAIN UNALTERED AND THE DETERMINATION THAT THE OFFICER'S MOTHER WAS NOT IN FACT DEPENDENT UPON HIM FOR HER CHIEF SUPPORT DURING THE PERIOD CLAIMED, REMAINS UNCHANGED.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THE COMMISSIONING OF THE OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY IN 1943 AND FOR MANY YEARS PRIOR TO HER APPOINTMENT AS A CLERK IN THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION IN SEPTEMBER 1944, HIS MOTHER WAS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED AND SELF-SUPPORTING, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT QUESTIONED THAT THE OFFICER CONTRIBUTED SUMS TO HER FROM HIS PAY AS AN ENLISTED MAN. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT HER ANNUAL INCOME FROM HER EMPLOYMENT IN THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION WAS AS FOLLOWS:SEPTEMBER 1944 THROUGH JUNE 1945--- $1,440, OR $120 MONTHLY; JULY 1945 THROUGH JUNE 1946--- $1,902, OR $158 MONTHLY; JULY 1946 THROUGH JUNE 1947--- $2,394, OR $199 MONTHLY; JULY 1947 THROUGH APRIL 1948--- $2,469, OR $206 MONTHLY; MAY 1948 THROUGH JUNE 1948- -- $2,394, OR $199 MONTHLY; AND FROM JULY 1948 TO JUNE 1950--- $2,724, OR $227 MONTHLY.

ON THE BASIS OF HER MONTHLY INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CLAIMED DEPENDENCY, IT WAS NECESSARY THAT THE OFFICER ESTABLISH NOT ONLY THAT HIS TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS WERE GREATER THAN ONE-HALF OF HER EXPENSES, BUT ALSO THAT HIS TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS EXCEEDED HIS MOTHER'S INCOME. BOTH OF THOSE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET BEFORE HE COULD BE CONSIDERED HER CHIEF SUPPORT FOR INCREASED ALLOWANCE PURPOSES UNDER THE PERTINENT STATUTES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE OFFICER'S CONTENTIONS WOULD REQUIRE THE CONCLUSION THAT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1946 THROUGH JUNE 1947, HIS MOTHER'S MONTHLY EXPENSES WERE IN EXCESS OF $400 A MONTH, AND ALSO, THAT HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO HER SUPPORT WERE IN EXCESS OF $200 A MONTH, DURING THAT PERIOD. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT AS LATE AS JULY 1, 1948, THE OFFICER EXECUTED A CERTIFICATE STATING THAT HIS DEPENDENT'S LIVING EXPENSES AVERAGED $250 A MONTH AND THAT HIS CONTRIBUTIONS WERE BUT $150 A MONTH. THE GREATEST AMOUNT ALLEGED BY THE OFFICER, AS DEPENDENT'S LIVING EXPENSES, WAS STATED IN HIS LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 1951, WHEN THE FIGURE $350 WAS MENTIONED, IN A QUOTATION FROM A THEN RECENT LETTER OF HIS MOTHER. THIS DATE IS SOME TWO AND ONE-HALF YEARS AFTER THE OFFICER SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED HIS ALLOTMENT TO HIS MOTHER.

UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED, AS IN OUR EARLIER REVIEW OF THE MATTER, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE OFFICER'S CONTRIBUTIONS, THE DEPENDENT'S OWN INCOME WAS IN EXCESS OF ONE-HALF HER LIVING EXPENSES AND THAT THE CREDITING OF INCREASED ALLOWANCES TO THE OFFICER WAS NOT PROPER UNDER THE STATUTE.

WE WILL APPRECIATE THE FURTHER COOPERATION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT IN CONSIDERING THIS CASE AND IN EFFECTING RECOVERY OF THE IMPROPER PAYMENTS MADE TO THE OFFICER. YOUR ADVICE OF THE ACTION TAKEN, INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF ANY COLLECTION, WILL ALSO BE APPRECIATED.