B-130073, FEB. 4, 1957

B-130073: Feb 4, 1957

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WE HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF YOUR CLIENT. WAS IN A FURLOUGH STATUS FOR THE FIRST PERIOD OF HIS CLAIM. THE FURLOUGH WAS INCIDENT TO A REDUCTION OF THE MINT'S PERSONNEL NECESSITATED BY CURTAILMENT OF WORK. THE FURLOUGH WAS TERMINATED AND HE WAS RECALLED TO DUTY. HE WAS GRANTED LEAVE WITHOUT PAY. THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE FURLOUGH OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPER. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT UPON REVIEW WE FIND NO LEGAL BASIS FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLIENT'S CLAIM. THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.

B-130073, FEB. 4, 1957

TO BULLOCK AND ALLEN, ESQUIRES:

PURSUANT TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 5, 1956, WE HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF YOUR CLIENT, ROBERT T. CROSBY, FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE PERIODS JANUARY 1, 1948 TO AUGUST 27, 1948, AND DECEMBER 7, 1948, TO DECEMBER 16, 1948, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE U.S. MINT, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA.

MR. ROBERT T. CROSBY, A PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEE, WAS IN A FURLOUGH STATUS FOR THE FIRST PERIOD OF HIS CLAIM, JANUARY 1 TO AUGUST 27, 1948. THE FURLOUGH WAS INCIDENT TO A REDUCTION OF THE MINT'S PERSONNEL NECESSITATED BY CURTAILMENT OF WORK. EFFECTIVE AUGUST 30, 1948, THE FURLOUGH WAS TERMINATED AND HE WAS RECALLED TO DUTY, HIS SERVICES THEN BEING REQUIRED. DURING THE SECOND PERIOD OF THE CLAIM, DECEMBER 7 TO 16, 1948, HE WAS GRANTED LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.

THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE FURLOUGH OR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY TO HAVE BEEN IMPROPER, OR IN ANY WAY VIOLATIVE OF A RIGHT OF YOUR CLIENT UNDER THE VETERANS' PREFERENCE ACT OF 1944, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 851, ET SEQ. THUS, THE CLAIM CANNOT BE CONSIDERED, AS APPARENTLY CONTENDED, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1948, 5 U.S.C. 652 (B), PROVIDING, IN SPECIFIED SITUATIONS, COMPENSATION FOR PERIODS OF UNWARRANTED REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION.

YOU ARE ADVISED THAT UPON REVIEW WE FIND NO LEGAL BASIS FOR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLIENT'S CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE PRIOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.