B-144730, JAN. 12, 1961

B-144730, JAN. 12, 1961

TO MR. JOHN R. LONG:

YOUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 12, 1960, REQUESTS REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION ALLEGEDLY DUE BECAUSE OF DUTY PERFORMED AS OFFICER OF THE DAY DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 1952 THROUGH JANUARY 1957, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AT THE IOWA ORDNANCE PLANT. YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED IN OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF NOVEMBER 23, 1960.

THE EVIDENCE YOU SUBMIT IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM SHOWS THAT DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED, YOU--- AND OTHER CIVILIANS SIMILARLY SITUATED--- WERE FROM TIME TO TIME DESIGNATED AS OFFICER OF THE DAY AT THE IOWA ORDNANCE PLANT. YOUR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING THOSE ASSIGNMENTS WERE SUCH THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES TO BE AVAILABLE BY TELEPHONE. DURING THE NORMAL WORKDAY YOU WERE ASSUMED TO BE AT YOUR OFFICE AND DURING NON-DUTY HOURS YOU WERE REQUIRED TO ADVISE DESIGNATED OFFICES AS TO YOUR WHEREABOUTS DURING PERIODS WHEN YOU WERE AWAY FROM YOUR QUARTERS.

YOU SAY THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF 8 HOURS' PREMIUM PAY FOR EACH OF THE 8 NATIONAL HOLIDAYS WHICH FELL DURING ASSIGNMENT AS OFFICER OF THE DAY, NO COMPENSATION WAS PAID YOU FOR ANY PORTION OF THE TIME YOU WERE ACTING AS OFFICER OF THE DAY. YOU CONTEND THAT YOU SHOULD BE PAID OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR ALL TIME WORKED IN EXCESS OF YOUR NORMAL WORKWEEK OF 40 HOURS, SINCE YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO OFFICER OF THE DAY DUTY BY OFFICIAL PLANT DIRECTIVES AND SUCH ASSIGNMENTS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 5 U.S.C. 911 REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION.

IN ORDER FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION TO BE PAID PURSUANT TO THE LAW CODIFIED AT 5 U.S.C. 911, THE HOURS WORKED IN EXCESS OF 40 HOURS IN ANY WORKWEEK MUST HAVE BEEN OFFICIALLY ORDERED OR APPROVED.

THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE IOWA ORDNANCE PLANT IN HIS REPORT OF OCTOBER 13, 1960, TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY FINANCE CENTER SAID:

"THROUGH INVESTIGATION IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT AT THE TIME CIVILIANS WERE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICER OF THE DAY IT WAS INFORMALLY AGREED BY THE CIVILIANS PARTICIPATING, THAT THE ONLY OVERTIME REQUESTED WOULD BE HOLIDAY PAY, IF AND WHEN SUCH HOLIDAY FELL ON THE CIVILIAN'S DUTY HOURS.'

PRESUMABLY, IF A CIVILIAN FAILED TO AGREE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT HE WOULD NOT BE LISTED ON THE OFFICER OF THE DAY ROSTER.

WE ARE NOT UNMINDFUL OF YOUR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE POSITION THAT THE OFFICER OF THE DAY DUTY WAS ASSIGNED ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT THE COMMANDING OFFICER WROTE IN HIS REPORT OF OCTOBER 13, 1960. HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE FACTS ALLEGED BY A CLAIMANT AND THE FACTS ADMINISTRATIVELY REPORTED, OUR CONCLUSION NECESSARILY MUST BE BASED UPON THE OFFICIAL RECORD, WHICH IS PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT IN THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. WE ALSO NOTE YOUR STATEMENT THAT AN ANNUAL GENERAL INSPECTION, PERFORMED IN DECEMBER 1956, BROUGHT ABOUT AN END TO THE ASSIGNMENTS OF CIVILIANS TO OFFICER OF THE DAY DUTY. WHILE THIS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS INDICATIVE OF DISSATISFACTION WITH THE PRIOR EXISTING ARRANGEMENT, IT GIVES NO WEIGHT TO YOUR CLAIM BECAUSE IT IN NO WAY ABROGATES THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE INSTALLATION. SEE ATTACHED COPY OF OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 22, 1960, COVERING A SITUATION SIMILAR TO YOURS.

THEREFORE, ON THE PRESENT RECORD, THE PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN BY OUR OFFICE IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM, IS SUSTAINED.