About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

B-179228 1 (1980-06-25)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacurd0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 





GAO                                            /


United States General Accounting Office                     Office of
Washington, DC 20548                                        General Counsel
                                                             In Reply
                                                             Referto: B-179228


                                        June 25, 1980


     The Honorable Alice Daniel           p2/1
     Assistant.Attorney General
     Civil Division
     Department of Justice

          Attention:  Lawrence S. Smith, Attorney
                      Commercial Litigation Branch

     Dear Ms. Daniel:

          Subject:  Bryan B. Riley v. United States
                    Ct. Cl. No. 206-73

          This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1980, in which
     you attached a letter from the plaintiff's attorney in which he
     continues to dispute certain items in our computation of Mr. Rilev's
     entitlements set out in our letter of April 10, 1980, to  the Court
     of Claims.  This letter corrected certain aspects of plaintiff's
     leave entitlements which were incorrectly stated in our December  14,
     1979 report to the court.

          At the outset we would like to point out that there seems  to
     be a misunderstanding as to the effect of the court's opinion  in
     this case.  It is our view that the court determined that Mr. Riley
     was not legally separated from active duty on April 30, 1973.  As
     a result our computations are based on what entitlements he would
     have received had he continued on active duty in the grade in
     which he was serving less separation payments  (readjustment pay
     and accrued leave settlements), active duty entitlements as an
     enlisted member, and retired pay.

          The plaintiff first contends that he is losing 76 days of
     accrued leave because he is required to pay back the $2,471.40
     accrued leave settlement he received for these days on his initial
     discharge on April 30, 1973.  Essentially, we related that since
     the effect of the court's order was that he had never been legally
     separated and had continued on active duty from May 1, 1973,  the
     plaintiff was required to pay back the accrued leave settlement
     he received on April 30, 1973; but he was recredited with  the




        ~.                      oW(7

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most