B-148058, OCT. 10, 1962

B-148058, OCT. 10, 1962

TO MISS MYRTLE HOPPE:

ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1962, YOU REQUESTED FURTHER REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENT INCIDENT TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.

THE ACTION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1962, B-148058, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN. SINCE THEN WE HAVE RECONSIDERED THE MATTER SEVERAL TIMES AND HAVE FOUND NO CLEAR BASIS FOR CHANGING OUR DECISION.

IN YOUR LETTER YOU REPEAT IN PART YOUR EARLIER STATEMENTS THAT THE REPORTS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE POST OFFICE ARE FALSE AND SAY THAT WE HAVE EVADED YOUR QUESTIONS AND BASED OUR OPINIONS ON SUCH FALSE INFORMATION RATHER THAN "ON THE TRUE FACTS WHICH (YOU) HAVE GIVEN (US).' YOU ALSO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS NO PAY INCREASE IN 1961 AND SAY THAT PARAGRAPH 10 OF OUR LETTER OF AUGUST 14, 1962, CONSTITUTES AN ADMISSION BY US THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A HIGHER STEP IN THE GRADE AT THE TIME OF YOUR TRANSFER.

OUR STATEMENT CONCERNING STATUTORY INCREASES OF JULY 1961, HAD REFERENCE TO THE INCREASES GRANTED BY PUBLIC LAW 86-568, JULY 1, 1960, 74 STAT. 296, AS CITED ON THE SAME PAGE OF THE LETTER. WE REGRET ANY INCONVENIENCE TO YOU WHICH MAY HAVE RESULTED FROM THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR.

IN OUR LETTER OF AUGUST 14, 1962, WE COMPARED THE SALARY SCHEDULES OF GRADE PFS-4 IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE STATUTORY INCREASES WITH THOSE IN EFFECT SUBSEQUENT THERETO AND STATED IN PARAGRAPH 10 THAT IF YOU HAD TRANSFERRED TO THE POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THE LOWER RATES WERE IN EFFECT THE APPOINTING OFFICER WOULD HAVE HAD TO PLACE YOU IN STEP 7 ($4,745) IN ORDER TO APPROXIMATE YOUR PREVIOUS HIGHEST SALARY ($4,790) AND SUBSEQUENTLY YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE INCREASE GRANTED FOR THAT STEP. THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU DID NOT TRANSFER UNTIL THE NEW RATES WERE IN EFFECT AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS ONLY NECESSARY TO ASSIGN YOU TO STEP 4 ($4,825) IN ORDER TO APPROXIMATE YOUR PREVIOUS HIGHEST SALARY, AND YOU WERE SO ASSIGNED. HENCE, WE DO NOT AGREE THAT OUR STATEMENT WAS OR IS AN ADMISSION THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED IN A HIGHER STEP.

AS TO YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT WE HAVE EVADED YOUR QUESTIONS AND BASED OUR DECISIONS ON THE FALSE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE AGENCY RATHER THAN ON "THE TRUE FACTS" SUPPLIED BY YOU--- WE HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES GIVING RISE TO THE MANY CLAIMS RECEIVED HERE FOR SETTLEMENT. THEREFORE, WE MUST BASE OUR DECISIONS ON THE FACTUAL INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE CLAIMANTS AND THE REPORTS OBTAINED FROM THE AGENCIES. THE SUBMISSION OF A CLAIM TO THIS OFFICE FOR SETTLEMENT DOES NOT, OF ITSELF, CREATE A PRESUMPTION OF THE CLAIMANT'S ENTITLEMENT TO THE AMOUNT SO CLAIMED. THERE IS NO DUTY ON US TO REFUTE A CLAIM OR TO REFUTE THE ASSERTIONS AND ALLEGATIONS UPON WHICH IT IS BASED. ON THE CONTRARY ONE WHO ASSERTS A CLAIM MUST SUSTAIN THE BURDEN OF FURNISHING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CLAIMANT'S RIGHT TO RECEIVE PAYMENT. FURTHERMORE, WHEN DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT ARISE BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT IT IS THE LONG ESTABLISHED RULE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICERS TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF FACTS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS IN THE ABSENCE OF A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.

WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MATTER SEVERAL TIMES AT YOUR REQUEST. IN OUR LETTERS WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE STATEMENTS YOU HAVE OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION AND HAVE ADVISED YOU OF THE REASONS WHY WE DO NOT VIEW THEM AS CONSTITUTING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CLEARLY ESTABLISH YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO GRADE PFS-4, STEP 4,WAS THE RESULT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR RATHER THAN THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION VESTED IN THE APPOINTING OFFICER.

YOUR PRESENT LETTER DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY RELEVANT FACTUAL INFORMATION NOT HERETOFORE CONSIDERED. UPON FURTHER REVIEW WE MUST ADHERE TO OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 23, 1962.