DocketNumber: No. 355-73
Citation Numbers: 206 Ct. Cl. 835
Judges: Dureee, Kashiwa, Kunzig
Filed Date: 1/17/1975
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/23/2022
Military fay/ retired pay (nondisability) / entitlement to retired pay/ W years qualified service. — On January 17,1975 the court issued the following order:
“This military pay case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed June 7,1974, and plaintiff’s cross-motion, filed July 16,1974, for summary judgment in No. 355-73.
“Plaintiff, a retired reserve officer, filed an application in April 1968, for retired pay benefits. Plaintiff had entered the active reserves on June 2, 1931 and continued in either active status during World War II or active reserve status through July 1,1950. Plaintiff resided in Mexico after World War II.
“Plaintiff’s application for retired pay benefits was denied on the ground that he did not have 20 years of qualified service. His records indicated that he had compiled 18 years and 29 days of qualifying service before being discharged from inactive Reserve status and his commission revoked on April 1, 1953. Upon consideration of the motions and after hearing oral argument, together with the pleadings, briefs and exhibits submitted, it is concluded that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
“Although plaintiff claims to have served as a part-time undercover intelligence gatherer for the Defense Attache at the United States Embassy in Mexico, he was never reported by the Embassy nor do his military records show such service. Applicable Army regulations contemplate not only a cognizance on the part of Army officials as to Reserve training activities, but also prior approval of such activities. See Army Regs. SR-140-350-20 and SR-140-190-2. The record plainly shows that plaintiff failed to comply with these regulations.
“Additionally, the undisputed facts show that the order assigning plaintiff, to a Reserve unit in 1949 listed his address
“On this record, we do not think it can be said that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records acted arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to law in denying plaintiff’s application.
“it is therefore ordered that defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted, plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment is denied and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed.”