Request for Reconsideration

A civilian Army employee requested a reinvestigation and reconsideration of a Claims Group determination that, as an intermittent employee, he was not entitled to earn leave and other fringe benefits in the same manner as a part-time employee having a regular tour of duty. The employee's claim for retroactive accrual of annual and sick leave and holiday pay arose in connection with his intermittent appointment. However, the employee claimed that, although his appointment was designated as intermittent, he in fact worked regularly scheduled tours of duty during a 16-month period. Intermittent services are those rendered by employees for whom no tour of duty can feasibly be established on a continuing basis. An employee is required to work a regular tour of duty during the administrative workweek to be entitled to leave benefits. Unless a specific time is established in advance during an administrative workweek when an employee is regularly required to perform duty, he cannot earn leave. Thus, intermittent employees are not eligible for annual and sick leave benefits. The employee alleged that his services were required on a regular repetitive basis an average of 3 days each administrative workweek. Therefore, he claimed that he lost his identity as an intermittent employee and became a part-time employee. The agency stated that the employee was never utilized other than as an intermittent employee. GAO found a worksheet, which the employee presented to establish his hours of work, to be insufficient evidence of regular, prescheduled hours of work within the meaning of the governing regulation. There was no clear indication that responsible officials established in advance a specific time when the employee was required to perform duties, and the daily hours of work the employee was required to perform varied during each week. Since the employee did not produce evidence sufficient to counter the administrative determination that he was not provided specific duty hours in advance, GAO could not authorize a retroactive change in status. Accordingly, the prior action of the Claims Group which disallowed the claim was sustained. An additional complaint alleging employment discrimination was for resolution under the agency's procedures for equal employment opportunity cases, rather than by GAO.