Case: GEORGE SCRATCHLEY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Scratchley v. United States
Decision Date: 1942-06-01
Docket Number: No. 45536
Citation: 96 Ct. Cl. 352
Volume: 96
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: GEORGE SCRATCHLEY v. THE UNITED STATES
Judges: MaddeN, Judge; JoNes, Judge; Whitakee, Judge; and LittletoN, Judge, concur.
Pages: 352–355

Head Matter:
GEORGE SCRATCHLEY v. THE UNITED STATES
[No. 45536.
Decided June 1, 1942]
King <& King for the plaintiff. Mr. Fred W. Shields was on the brief.
Mr. Elihu Schott, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea, for the defendant.

Opinion:
GeeeN, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
The plaintiff is a Naval Officer who was found by the Naval Retiring Board to be incapacitated for active service. The proceedings and findings of the Board were forwarded to the Secretary of the Navy who on May 26, 1936 presented them to the President with the recommendation that they be approved and the plaintiff be retired from the active service on August 1, 1936. On May 27,1936 the President approved the findings of the Board and the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy.
The sole question in the case is whether the plaintiff was retired May 27,1936 when the President approved the findings of the Board and its recommendation; or on August 1, 1936, the date recommended by the Board and the Secretary of the Navy for his retirement.
Manifestly the date recommended by the Board as the time when the plaintiff should be retired and approved by the President, was the date of plaintiff's retirement; and not the date of the President's approval of the recommendation of the Board and the Secretary of the Navy.
On similar facts this court has so held in the cases of James A. Greenwald, Jr., v. The United States, 88 C. Cls. 264, and Henry M. Butler v. The United States, 91 C. Cls. 88, and other recent cases.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover but the case is a continuing one and judgment will be suspended awaiting a report from the General Accounting Office showing the amount due plaintiff; at that time judgment will be entered in accordance with the findings and this opinion.
MaddeN, Judge; JoNes, Judge; Whitakee, Judge; and LittletoN, Judge, concur.
In accordance with the above decision and upon a report from the General Accounting Office showing the amount due thereunder, the court on October 5, 1942, entered judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $766.16.