B-169233, JUN. 2, 1970

B-169233, JUN. 2, 1970

TO MR. MATTHEW A. PUCHALSKI:

WE REFER FURTHER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 7, 1970, WHEREIN YOU SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR EXPENSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $90 INCURRED IN THE TYPING OF A MANUSCRIPT.

AS STATED IN PRIOR CORRESPONDENCE AND SUMMARIZED IN OUR DECISION LETTER OF APRIL 20, 1970, THE $90 WAS PAID BY YOU TO ANOTHER SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE EMPLOYEE (PART-TIME) FOR SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A 1966 SOIL SURVEY REPORT. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE TYPING SERVICE WAS PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE WORKING HOURS OF THE PART-TIME EMPLOYEE WHO COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE UTILIZED FOR SUCH SERVICE ON GOVERNMENT TIME BECAUSE OF MONETARY LIMITATIONS.

IN OUR DECISION OF APRIL 20, 1970, WE STATED:

"THE RECORD INDICATES THAT YOUR LOCAL SUPERVISOR, THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST, DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THE PART-TIME TYPIST TO WORK IN EXCESS OF THE SALARY LIMITATION SET BY THE APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH SHE WAS EMPLOYED. ADDITIONALLY, YOU WERE NOT AUTHORIZED BY A PROPER OFFICIAL TO OBLIGATE THE GOVERNMENT FOR PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION.

"ASSUMING THAT THE UNITED STATES HAD BEEN PROPERLY OBLIGATED FOR PAYMENT FOR THE TYPING SERVICES THERE WOULD STILL BE FOR CONSIDERATION THE RULE MENTIONED IN OUR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT LETTER OF JANUARY 26, 1970, TO THE EFFECT THAT GENERALLY PAYMENTS MUST BE MADE DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC CREDITOR BY AN AUTHORIZED DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND THAT NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT CAN CREATE A VALID CLAIM IN HIS FAVOR BY PAYING OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM HIS OWN FUNDS. SEE 33 COMP. GEN. 20. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM MUST BE SUSTAINED."

YOU STATE THAT YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING "FOUR HUMAN EQUATION FACTORS" WHICH YOU FEEL HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED IN THE ADJUDICATION OF YOUR CLAIM:

"1. AN EMPLOYEE WORKS THROUGH HIS SUPERVISOR BEFORE INITIATING ANY ACTIVITY, ESPECIALLY THAT OUT OF THE USUAL ORDER. COMPLIANCE FOR THAT TYPING WAS SANCTIONED WITH DUE SUPERVISORY DELIBERATION FOR ACCOMODATING THE PART-TIME TYPIST.

"2. THE TYPING WAS DONE IN A GOVERNMENT OFFICE AND WITH ITS EQUIPMENT. AND DURING THAT TIME, NATURALLY, THE TYPIST CARRIED ON THE AS-USUAL OFFICE BUSINESS, SUCH AS: ANSWERING THE TELEPHONE, CATERING TO OFFICE VISITORS, HANDLING MATTERS PERTINENT TO DISTRICT SUPERVISORS, AND EVEN TAKING DICTATION FROM MY SUPERVISOR.

"3. THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE WITHIN THAT ARENA OF EXCESS HOURS (THAT YOU MENTION) AND WERE DULY AUTHORIZED BY A PROPER OFFICIAL, MY SUPERVISOR. AND THAT INTERPLAY, BY YOUR DECISION, NOW PLACES ME IN THE POSITION FOR UNDERWRITING THE STATE. THAT IS A FRUSTRATION THAT CAN HARDLY BE CONSIDERED AS FAIR PLAY.

"4. I DO NOT CONSTRUE THOSE FACTORS TO IMPLY THAT I CREATED A VALID CLAIM IN MY FAVOR BY PAYING OBLIGATIONS OF THE U. S. FROM MY OWN FUNDS. THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE BECAUSE THE TYPIST WAS DESPERATE FOR TAX MONEY, AS A RESULT OF PERSONAL PROBLEMS. AND THAT, SIR, TOOK PLACE MORE THAN ONE YEAR AFTER THE TYPING WAS DONE. AND WHAT OF THE TYPED DOCUMENT WHICH IS STILL BEING USED BY THE SERVICE?"

THE ABOVE FACTORS TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE RELATED LEGALLY TO YOUR CLAIM WERE CONSIDERED. YOUR STATEMENTS IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 3 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE WORK WAS DULY AUTHORIZED BY AN APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL ARE NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE FACTS AS REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE TYPIST INVOLVED WAS EMPLOYED UNDER AN APPOINTMENT WHICH LIMITED HER YEARLY SALARY TO 40 PERCENT OF THE BASIC SALARY FOR GRADE GS-3 AND THAT SHE HAD REACHED THIS LIMIT IN THE YEAR OF THE REPORT IN QUESTION EXCLUSIVE OF HER WORK IN TYPING THAT REPORT. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT AUTHORITY WAS OBTAINED TO EXTEND THE LIMITED APPOINTMENT. INDEED THE RECORD SHOWS THAT UPON LEARNING SHE COULD NOT BE PAID FROM FEDERAL FUNDS YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREED TO PAY THE TYPIST FOR HER WORK ON THE REPORT RATHER THAN HAVE THE WORK SENT OUT TO ANOTHER OFFICE. YOUR REFERENCE IN PARAGRAPH 4 TO PAYMENT HAVING BEEN MADE BY YOU OVER A YEAR AFTER THE REPORT WAS TYPED UNDERSCORES THE FACT THAT NO ONE WITH APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY DIRECTED THE PART-TIME EMPLOYEE TO WORK IN EXCESS OF THE SALARY LIMITATION SET BY THE APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY GOVERNING HER EMPLOYMENT. THIS CONNECTION 31 U.S.C. 665(B) PROVIDES:

"NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL *** EMPLOY PERSONAL SERVICE IN EXCESS OF THAT AUTHORIZED BY LAW, EXCEPT IN CASES OF EMERGENCY INVOLVING THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE OR THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY."

ON THE RECORD WE FIND NO AUTHORITY THAT AUTHORIZES REIMBURSEMENT OF YOUR CLAIM AND ACCORDINGLY THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE IS SUSTAINED.