B-153317, FEB. 14, 1964
Highlights
THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE THE RECORD SHOWS YOU HAD REQUESTED SUBSTITUTION OF ONLY 2 DAYS SICK LEAVE FOR ANNUAL LEAVE PRIOR TO THE TIME OF YOUR RETIREMENT. YOUR SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ADDITIONAL SICK LEAVE FOR ANNUAL LEAVE WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS NOT UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 18 MONTHS AFTER YOUR RETIREMENT THAT YOU OBTAINED A DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE AND REQUESTED SUBSTITUTION OF THE SICK LEAVE FOR ANNUAL LEAVE. THE ANNUAL LEAVE FOR WHICH YOU REQUEST PAYMENT AND WHICH WAS USED BY YOU IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO YOUR RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE EVEN THOUGH ITS USE MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM MISINFORMATION. IT WAS ONLY AS A RESULT OF YOUR ILLNESS THAT A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT PRESENTED ITSELF.
B-153317, FEB. 14, 1964
TO MR. GUSTAVE V. ANDERSON:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 6, 1964, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 31, 1963, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF $159.04 REPRESENTING ADDITIONAL LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR 8 DAYS OF ANNUAL LEAVE UPON YOUR RETIREMENT AS A RURAL CARRIER AT OGEMA, WISCONSIN.
THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE THE RECORD SHOWS YOU HAD REQUESTED SUBSTITUTION OF ONLY 2 DAYS SICK LEAVE FOR ANNUAL LEAVE PRIOR TO THE TIME OF YOUR RETIREMENT, AND YOUR SUBSEQUENT REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF ADDITIONAL SICK LEAVE FOR ANNUAL LEAVE WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. YOU SAY THAT YOU HAD RECEIVED MISINFORMATION CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF LEAVE FOR WHICH YOU COULD RECEIVE A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE POST OFFICE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, IN JUNE 1961. THE RECORD DOES NOT INDICATE THAT AT THAT TIME YOU INQUIRED OF THE POSTMASTER AT OGEMA AS TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU. IT WAS NOT UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 18 MONTHS AFTER YOUR RETIREMENT THAT YOU OBTAINED A DOCTOR'S CERTIFICATE AND REQUESTED SUBSTITUTION OF THE SICK LEAVE FOR ANNUAL LEAVE. WE POINT OUT ALSO, THE FACT THAT HAD YOU NOT BECOME ILL, THE ANNUAL LEAVE FOR WHICH YOU REQUEST PAYMENT AND WHICH WAS USED BY YOU IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO YOUR RETIREMENT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWABLE EVEN THOUGH ITS USE MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM MISINFORMATION. IT WAS ONLY AS A RESULT OF YOUR ILLNESS THAT A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT PRESENTED ITSELF.
SUBSTITUTION AND GRANTING OF SICK LEAVE IS A MATTER PRIMARILY WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, IN THIS CASE THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. OUR OPINION IS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT ACTED IN A ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS MANNER IN DENYING YOUR REQUEST FOR SUBSTITUTION OF THE LEAVE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED IN TAKING ACTION CONTRARY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION.
ACCORDINGLY, OUR SETTLEMENT OF DECEMBER 31, 1963, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.