B-155612, DEC. 11, 1964

B-155612: Dec 11, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE DISALLOWANCE WAS PREDICATED UPON THE REPORT OF THE AGENCY THAT YOU WERE GRANTED COMPENSATORY TIME OFF ON SEPTEMBER 26-27. THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OVERTIME SERVICES FOR WHICH CLAIM IS ASSERTED. YOU SAY THE TWO DAYS COMPENSATORY TIME YOU WERE GRANTED ON SEPTEMBER 26- 27. WERE IN LIEU OF 17 1/2 HOURS "OLD OVERTIME" AND UNRELATED TO OVERTIME CLAIMED. YOU SAY THE AUTHORIZATION TO PERFORM OVERTIME SERVICES WAS GIVEN VERBALLY BY COLONEL STODDARD. CONCERNING THE ABSENCE OF RECORDS YOU SAY YOU WERE SENT TO KOREA ALONE. WHERE THE TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS WERE KEPT. YOU DID ASK THAT THE 15 1/2 HOURS BE RECORDED SINCE YOU WERE LEAVING THE AGENCY THAT WEEK.

B-155612, DEC. 11, 1964

TO MR. FRANK T. DELIVERS:

ON NOVEMBER 7, 1964, YOU REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 6, 1964, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR 15 1/2 HOURS OVERTIME COMPENSATION INCIDENT TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY PROCUREMENT AGENCY, DURING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 15-21, 1963.

THE DISALLOWANCE WAS PREDICATED UPON THE REPORT OF THE AGENCY THAT YOU WERE GRANTED COMPENSATORY TIME OFF ON SEPTEMBER 26-27, 1963, AND FURTHER, THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OVERTIME SERVICES FOR WHICH CLAIM IS ASSERTED.

YOU SAY THE TWO DAYS COMPENSATORY TIME YOU WERE GRANTED ON SEPTEMBER 26- 27, WERE IN LIEU OF 17 1/2 HOURS "OLD OVERTIME" AND UNRELATED TO OVERTIME CLAIMED. ALSO, YOU SAY THE AUTHORIZATION TO PERFORM OVERTIME SERVICES WAS GIVEN VERBALLY BY COLONEL STODDARD. CONCERNING THE ABSENCE OF RECORDS YOU SAY YOU WERE SENT TO KOREA ALONE, THAT THE PROCUREMENT AGENCY HAD NO TIMEKEEPER THERE AND UPON YOUR RETURN TO YOKOHAMA, WHERE THE TIME AND ATTENDANCE RECORDS WERE KEPT, YOU DID ASK THAT THE 15 1/2 HOURS BE RECORDED SINCE YOU WERE LEAVING THE AGENCY THAT WEEK, AND FURTHER, THAT YOU ASSUMED THAT YOUR WORD WOULD BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE AND THAT YOU WOULD BE GIVEN COMPENSATORY TIME OFF.

THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 911, 912, AND THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS, PROVIDE FOR PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME OR FOR COMPENSATORY TIME OFF IN LIEU THEREOF UNDER THE CONDITIONS STATED, WHEN SUCH OVERTIME IS OFFICIALLY ORDERED OR APPROVED BY AN OFFICER TO WHOM SUCH AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GRANTED.

WITH YOUR CLAIM YOU SUBMITTED AS ENCLOSURE NO. 2, A COPY OF YOUR MEMORANDUM DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1963, TO "CH, PROC DIV" IN WHICH YOU ITEMIZED BY DATES THE HOURS FOR WHICH YOU NOW CLAIM AND REQUESTED APPROVAL OF COMPENSATORY TIME THEREFOR. THE MEMORANDUM READS IN PART AS FOLLOWS:

"NO SPECIFIC APPROVAL TO WORK OVERTIME HAD BEEN RECEIVED, NOR HAD IT BEEN ASKED. WHILE NOT DENYING I WORKED OVERTIME TO HASTEN MY RETURN, MY PRIMARY REASON FOR WORKING OVERTIME WAS TO SPEEDILY ACCOMPLISH MY MISSION AS I KNEW THE CONCEPT OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PLANS WOULD BE OFFICIALLY APPROVED AS IT WAS BY LETTER FROM THE COR ON 19 SEP 63. * * * AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE OVERTIME, I USED THE COMMANDING OFFICER'S PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED POLICY, NOT CHANGED TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT WHEN WORK HAD TO BE DONE ON THIS CONTRACT IN KOREA, HE EXPECTED IT TO BE DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY IRRESPECTIVE OF HOURS.'

YOU ALSO SUBMITTED A LETTER TO YOU DATED AUGUST 13, 1964 (SOME 11 MONTHS FOLLOWING THE PERIOD OF DUTY INVOLVED) FROM COLONEL STODDARD, WHO WAS NO LONGER AT THE POST. IN THAT LETTER COLONEL STODDARD STATED THAT HE AUTHORIZED YOU TO WORK OVERTIME BUT THAT HE HAD NO RECORDS AND DID NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OVERTIME YOU WORKED OR WHETHER YOU WERE PAID THEREFOR. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF YOUR STATEMENT, QUOTED HEREIN, THAT NO SPECIFIC APPROVAL HAD BEEN RECEIVED OR REQUESTED, ETC., WE ASSUME THAT COLONEL STODDARD HAD REFERENCE TO THE "PREVIOUS ANNOUNCED POLICY" WHICH YOU SAY YOU USED IN JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR ACTION.

WE HAVE NO FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE MANY CLAIMS THAT ARE RECEIVED HERE BUT MUST RELY UPON THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE CLAIMANTS AND THE REPORTS WHICH WE OBTAIN FROM THE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES INVOLVED. FURTHER, IN CASES OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE CLAIMANTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AS TO THE MATERIAL FACTS SURROUNDING A CLAIM, IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED RULE THAT ACCOUNTING OFFICERS MUST ACCEPT THE FACTS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH RECORDS.

THE AGENCY HAS REPORTED THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE OVERTIME OR OF AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE OVERTIME SERVICES AND HAS RECOMMENDED AGAINST PAYMENT THEREFOR. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO CLEAR BASIS FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM AND, THEREFORE, THE SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 6, 1964, MUST BE SUSTAINED.