Skip to main content

B-131612, MAY 21, 1957

B-131612 May 21, 1957
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE ON THE GROUNDS THAT YOU HAD RESIGNED YOUR POSITION WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT TULLAHOMA. IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOU WERE NOT SEPARATED FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 29. THAT YOU WERE ON THE PAYROLL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ON MARCH 23. WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN WASHINGTON. SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE BY YOU IN LETTERS DATED AUGUST 1. ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY WHICH WERE DULY CONSIDERED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO OUR OFFICE CONCERNING YOUR CASE DATED FEBRUARY 27. AS FOLLOWS: "CLAIM WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISAPPROVED BY FINANCE OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT CLAIMANT RESIGNED VOLUNTARILY FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE.

View Decision

B-131612, MAY 21, 1957

TO MR. WILLIAM D. MCGRAW:

YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 15, 1957, PROTESTS THE ACTION TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 5, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS, AND THE COST OF TRANSPORTING YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PERSONAL EFFECTS FROM TULLAHOMA, TENNESSEE, TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE ON THE GROUNDS THAT YOU HAD RESIGNED YOUR POSITION WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AT TULLAHOMA, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 29, 1954, AND THOUGH YOU RECEIVED A NEW APPOINTMENT WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WASHINGTON, D.C., EFFECTIVE MARCH 23, 1954, THAT SUCH NEW APPOINTMENT DID NOT CREATE ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT TO TRANSPORT YOUR HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND EFFECTS OR TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED INCIDENT TO THE TRAVEL PERFORMED BY YOU AND YOUR DEPENDENTS TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOU WERE NOT SEPARATED FROM THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 29, 1954, BUT THAT YOU WERE ON THE PAYROLL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ON MARCH 23, 1954, AND WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE BY YOU IN LETTERS DATED AUGUST 1, 1955, AND FEBRUARY 23, 1954, ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY WHICH WERE DULY CONSIDERED IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT TO OUR OFFICE CONCERNING YOUR CASE DATED FEBRUARY 27, 1957. THAT REPORT READS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"CLAIM WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISAPPROVED BY FINANCE OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT CLAIMANT RESIGNED VOLUNTARILY FOR HIS OWN CONVENIENCE. NO TRAVEL ORDERS WERE ISSUED AND COST OF TRAVEL AND SHIPMENT OF HOUSEHOLD GOODS WAS NOT AUTHORIZED NOR APPROVED.'

THE RECORDS SHOW THAT BY MEMORANDUM, DATED JANUARY 29, 1954, YOU SUBMITTED A RESIGNATION AS FOLLOWS:

"1. I HEREBY SUBMIT MY RESIGNATION TO TAKE EFFECT AS OF NOON TODAY.

"2. HOWEVER, I AM ATTACHING HERETO A LEAVE SLIP REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ANNUAL LEAVE IN THE AMOUNT OF 246 HOURS WHICH I TRUST YOU MAY SEE YOUR WAY CLEAR TO APPROVE. IF THIS REQUEST IS GRANTED, THEN IN THAT EVENT, I REQUEST THAT MY RESIGNATION BECOME EFFECTIVE AS OF THE TERMINATION OF SUCH LEAVE.'

FURTHERMORE, A REQUEST FOR PERSONNEL ACTION, DATED JANUARY 28, 1954 (PRESUMABLY A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, WHICH SHOULD HAVE READ JANUARY 29), BEARING YOUR SIGNATURE CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING REMARK:

"I CANNOT SATISFACTORILY FILL THE POSITION CONSIDERING THE LEGAL STANDARDS DESIRED TO BE APPLIED THERETO. MY LAST WORKING DAY WILL BE 12:00 28 JANUARY 1954.'

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THAT REQUEST BY NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION DATED FEBRUARY 5, 1954, SIGNED BY L. E. COX, COLONEL, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DISTRICT ENGINEER. THAT NOTICE SHOWS YOUR RESIGNATION WAS ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 29, 1954, AND STATES THE REASON FOR RESIGNATION TO BE AS FOLLOWS:

"DISAGREED WITH THE ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES OF THE TULLAHOMA DISTRICT.'

YOU RECEIVED A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR 240 HOURS ANNUAL LEAVE ON FEBRUARY 8, 1954, BASED ON YOUR SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE, COVERING THE PERIOD JANUARY 29 THROUGH MARCH 15, 1954. THEREAFTER YOU WERE APPOINTED, EFFECTIVE MARCH 23, 1954, TO A POSITION IN WASHINGTON, D.C. YOU NOW QUESTION THE EFFICACY OF THE ACTIONS ON YOUR PART AND ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS CONCERNED TO EFFECT YOUR SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE. IT IS SETTLED LAW IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT THAT A VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION WHICH IS ACCEPTED IN THE TERMS TENDERED IS EFFECTIVE TO SEPARATE THE EMPLOYEE FROM THE SERVICE ON THE MUTUALLY ESTABLISHED DATE. IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT NO ACTION ON THE PART OF THE EMPLOYEE, THE EMPLOYER, OR BOTH CAN THEREAFTER CHANGE THAT DATE. 26 COMP. DEC. 498; 16 COMP. GEN. 953; 19 ID. 236; 32 ID. 113. THE TERMS OF YOUR WRITTEN RESIGNATION APPARENTLY OFFERED THE GOVERNMENT AN OPTION TO ACCEPT YOUR RESIGNATION EFFECTIVE FORTHWITH ON JANUARY 29, OR TO ACCEPT IT TO TAKE EFFECT AT THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR ACCRUED ANNUAL LEAVE. THE RECORD ESTABLISHES BEYOND DOUBT THAT YOUR RESIGNATION WAS ACCEPTED TO TAKE EFFECT ON JANUARY 29, 1954, AND HAD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS ELECTED TO KEEP YOU ON THE ROLLS IN A LEAVE STATUS BEYOND THAT DATE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO QUESTION THE PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION RESULTING FROM SUCH ACTION AS BEING IN CONTRAVENTION OF OUR DECISION 34 COMP. GEN. 61.

IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT YOU LAWFULLY WERE SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE ON JANUARY 29, 1954, AND ARE NOT ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE CLAIMED INCIDENT TO YOUR LATER APPOINTMENT TO A POSITION IN WASHINGTON, C., EVEN HAD SUCH TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION BEEN ADMINISTRATIVELY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CONCLUSION REACHED IN OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 5, 1957, IS CORRECT AND UPON REVIEW IT MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs