Skip to main content

[Comments on Army Member's Claim for Lost and Damaged Household Goods]

B-253559 Published: Nov 04, 1993. Publicly Released: Nov 04, 1993.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

No summary is currently available

View Decision

B-253559, November 4, 1993

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Compensation Claim settlement Property damages Finality CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Compensation Claim settlement Property damages An employee appealed a Claims Group letter declining to assert jurisdiction over the employee's claim arising under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721 (1988), which he filed after a portion of his household goods were lost or damaged incident to a transfer. The Claims Group's determination is affirmed. Settlements under that Act are final and conclusive. The GAO does have jurisdiction, however, over claims by carriers who have had payments offset to satisfy employee settlements under that Act because the Act applies only to the claims of uniformed personnel and civilian employees of the federal government.

 

Dear Mr.         :

This responds to your May 5, 1993, request for reconsideration of our Claims Group letter Z-2793472, October 20, 1992, advising you that our Office does not have jurisdiction to consider your claim for additional compensation for your household goods that were lost or damaged during shipment incident to your transfer from Huntsville, Alabama, to Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

We have reviewed your request and supporting documents and find no error of law or fact in the Claims Group's determination, which is therefore affirmed. We are providing the following information, however, in the hope that it will clarify the matter for you.

The record shows that you claimed $13,414.12 for lost and damaged household goods incident to your transfer. The carrier responsible for your shipment, Senate Forwarding, Inc., initially offered a settlement of $4,707.65, which you did not accept. You then pursued your claim through the Army. The Army adjudicated and paid your claim under its regulations issued pursuant to the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act. Under those provisions, you were paid $5,805, the depreciated value of your property as determined by the Army. The Army then pursued collection from Senate of full replacement value of your property with the understanding that you would receive the amount collected in excess of $5,805. Subsequently, the Army collected by setoff $11,095 from Senate, but later reduced Senate's liability to $8,302.80. Senate appealed to our Claims Group which conducted an item-by-item review, disallowing some items and sending the claim back to the Army for further action on others. Z-2793472-53, Nov. 24, 1992, copy enclosed. The Army noted that the settlement failed to account for the full replacement cost option you had chosen, and after further consideration, the Claims Group amended its settlement to allow for the full replacement cost of certain items. Z-2793472-53, Jan. 21, 1993, copy enclosed.

Based on the Claims Group's settlements, the Chief, U.S. Army Personnel Claims and Recovery Division advised you in a February 25, 1993, letter that the Army had received a final settlement from Senate of $8,243, and that he had determined that amount to be the final value of your claim. He further advised you that a check for $2,438 was being mailed to you, which together with the $5,805 previously paid you totals the full $8,243 due you. The letter explained that you were awarded less than the amount you claimed because of a lack of evidence to substantiate your claims for suits and china, and it stated that this determination was final under the provisions of 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721(k).

When you requested that our Claims Group review your claim, they advised you that the General Accounting Office has no authority to settle employee claims under the Military Personnel and Civilian Employees' Claims Act of 1964, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721 (1988). That is correct. Under that statute, an agency's decision on an employee's claim is "final and conclusive", and we have no jurisdiction to review it. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3721(k). Michael J. Washenko, B-219094, Dec. 5, 1985; U.S. Forest Service, 64 Comp.Gen. 93 (1984), copies enclosed.

The Claims Act of 1964, however, did not apply to Senate's claim against the Army because by its terms that Act applies only to claims against the government by members of the uniformed services and civilian employees for loss or damage to personal property incident to their service. Our Claims Group did have jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3702 to review Senate's claim for the amount set off against it by the Army. Upon our Claims Group's settlement of Senate's claim, the Army was then able to reimburse you the amount received above what had been allowed you under the Claims Act of 1964. It was our settlement of Senate's claim to which Colonel Fowler was referring in his June 26, 1992, letter which apparently caused you some confusion.

We trust this clarifies for you why, as the Claims Group advised you, we have no authority to further review the Army's settlement of your claim, which is final and conclusive.

 

 

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Army personnelClaims settlementDamages (legal)Employee transfersFreight transportationHousehold goodsJurisdictional authorityProperty damage claimsProperty depreciationMilitary forces