B-175278, DEC 13, 1972
Highlights
IS TO BE REGARDED AS THE DAY SERVICES WERE RENDERED. HUFF: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 13. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS BARRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9. YOU SEEK RECONSIDERATION APPARENTLY UPON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION AS TO WHEN YOUR CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 31 U.S.C. 71A. STATING THAT "OVERTIME PAY IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR DUTY OFFICERS. " AND ADVICE YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL THAT "ACCRUED" DATE COULD NOT BE EARLIER THAN WHEN LEGAL RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED. WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE OEP DOCUMENT TO WHICH YOU HAVE REFERRED. BY VIRTUE OF THE OEP DIRECTIVE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT PAYMENTS TO DUTY OFFICERS WERE NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTHORIZED SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 11.
B-175278, DEC 13, 1972
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - TIME LIMITATION FOR CLAIMS ACCRUAL DATE DECISION SUSTAINING THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF THOMAS R. HUFF, FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION. THE DATE OF ACCRUAL OF A CLAIM FOR THE PURPOSES OF 31 U.S.C. 71A, WHICH BARS CLAIMS NOT RECEIVED BY GAO WITHIN 10 FULL YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED, IS TO BE REGARDED AS THE DAY SERVICES WERE RENDERED, AND THE CLAIM ACCRUES ON A DAILY BASIS. 29 COMP. GEN. 517 (1950).
TO MR. THOMAS R. HUFF:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 1972, REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION OF THE ACTION OF OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION IN LETTER OF FEBRUARY 9, 1972, IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION. THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT IT WAS BARRED BY THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, 54 STAT 1061, 31 U.S.C. 71A, NOT HAVING BEEN RECEIVED HERE WITHIN 10 FULL YEARS AFTER THE CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED.
YOU SEEK RECONSIDERATION APPARENTLY UPON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION AS TO WHEN YOUR CLAIM FIRST ACCRUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF 31 U.S.C. 71A. YOUR DOUBT APPARENTLY ARISES IN VIEW OF A DOCUMENT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS (OEP) DATED FEBRUARY 11, 1959, STATING THAT "OVERTIME PAY IS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR DUTY OFFICERS," AND ADVICE YOU HAVE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL THAT "ACCRUED" DATE COULD NOT BE EARLIER THAN WHEN LEGAL RIGHTS WERE ESTABLISHED.
WHILE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO THE OEP DOCUMENT TO WHICH YOU HAVE REFERRED, WE NOTE THAT YOUR CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR OVERTIME WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED COVERS THE PERIOD JULY 2, 1958, THROUGH JUNE 5, 1960. BY VIRTUE OF THE OEP DIRECTIVE IT WOULD APPEAR THAT PAYMENTS TO DUTY OFFICERS WERE NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTHORIZED SUBSEQUENT TO FEBRUARY 11, 1959, WHICH PERIOD REPRESENTS A CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF YOUR CLAIM. IN ANY EVENT IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE DATE OF ACCRUAL OF A CLAIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, IS TO BE REGARDED AS THE DAY THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED, AND THAT THE CLAIM ACCRUES UPON A DAILY BASIS. 29 COMP. GEN. 517 (1950).
SINCE YOUR CLAIM WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN OUR OFFICE MORE THAN TEN YEARS AFTER IT ACCRUED THE ACTION OF FEBRUARY 9, 1972, IS SUSTAINED.