Skip to main content

B-128323, JUL. 30, 1956

B-128323 Jul 30, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME SERVICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY VESSEL FS-399. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE AVAILABLE RECORDS WERE INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME COMPENSATION CLAIMED. IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU STATE THAT THE BURDEN OF OVERTIME SERVICE AS DISCLOSED BY THE SHIP'S LOG WAS BORNE BY YOU BECAUSE THE OTHER OFFICERS WERE NOT ENTITLED UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME SERVICES. UNITED STATES MILITARY PORT OF MANILA STATED THAT IT CONSIDERED COPIES OF THE LOG OF THE FS-399 AN INADEQUATE AND INACCURATE BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS THAT THEY FAILED TO SHOW THE HOURS OF OVERTIME SERVICE PERFORMED AND BY WHOM.

View Decision

B-128323, JUL. 30, 1956

TO MR. JOHN H. KING:

YOUR RECENT LETTER TRANSMITTED HERE BY THE FINANCE CENTER, U.S. ARMY, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF THAT PART OF OUR SETTLEMENT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1955, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME SERVICES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RENDERED AS AN OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY VESSEL FS-399, 29TH ENGINEER BATTALION.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BECAUSE AVAILABLE RECORDS WERE INADEQUATE TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT YOU WERE ENTITLED TO OVERTIME COMPENSATION CLAIMED. IN YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW YOU STATE THAT THE BURDEN OF OVERTIME SERVICE AS DISCLOSED BY THE SHIP'S LOG WAS BORNE BY YOU BECAUSE THE OTHER OFFICERS WERE NOT ENTITLED UNDER THEIR CONTRACTS TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME SERVICES.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR CLAIM BE DENIED BECAUSE HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES MILITARY PORT OF MANILA STATED THAT IT CONSIDERED COPIES OF THE LOG OF THE FS-399 AN INADEQUATE AND INACCURATE BASIS FOR PAYMENT OF THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS THAT THEY FAILED TO SHOW THE HOURS OF OVERTIME SERVICE PERFORMED AND BY WHOM. ON THE FACTS BEFORE US WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONCUR IN THAT VIEW. IT FURTHER IS REPORTED THAT THE VESSEL ON WHICH YOU WERE EMPLOYED CARRIED AN OFFICER COMPLEMENT OF THREE DECK AND THREE ENGINE OFFICERS TO WORK IN SHIFTS OF FOUR HOURS ON AND EIGHT HOURS OFF DUTY IN EACH 24 HOUR DAY OR EIGHT HOURS' DUTY A DAY FOR EACH OFFICER. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD THAT FILIPINO OFFICERS UNDER THEIR AGREEMENTS WITH THE DEPARTMENT ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY EXCUSED FROM PERFORMING OVERTIME DUTY AND THE STATEMENT IN YOUR LETTER REFERRED-TO ABOVE SUGGESTS THAT YOU ACTED VOLUNTARILY IN PERFORMING OVERTIME SERVICE IN LIEU OF THE FILIPINO OFFICERS WHO OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PERFORM THAT SERVICE.

IN ANY EVENT, WE ARE INFORMED THAT NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE MATTER IS AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. ALSO, WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ALL STATIONS CONCERNING THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT CLAIMS SUCH AS YOURS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN YOUR CASE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BURDEN IS UPON YOU TO FURNISH SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS WILL CLEARLY AND SATISFACTORILY ESTABLISH YOUR ENTITLEMENT TO THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION CLAIMED.

ACCORDINGLY, ON THE PRESENT RECORD WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONCLUDE THAT OUR EARLIER SETTLEMENT IS CORRECT AND UPON REVIEW, IT MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs