B-157582, MAR. 22, 1966

B-157582: Mar 22, 1966

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

AS YOU ARE AWARE. WAS REFERRED HERE FOR CONSIDERATION OF HER INDEBTEDNESS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE REPORTED UNAUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION OF HER HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND AUTOMOBILE. BECAUSE HER ENTITLEMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION WAS INEXTRICABLY DEPENDENT UPON HER PURPORTED TRANSFER TO A POSITION IN BANGKOK UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IT BECAME NECESSARY TO REVIEW THE APPOINTMENT ASPECT OF MISS PEKORS' CASE. WHEN MISS PEKORS WAS OFFERED THE POSITION IN BANGKOK SHE WAS SERVING UNDER AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MISS PEKORS AS WELL AS THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WERE AWARE THAT THE ARMY LIAISON OFFICE COULD NOT PROPERLY RELEASE HER UNTIL A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT WAS OBTAINED AND TRAINED.

B-157582, MAR. 22, 1966

TO WILKINSON, CRAGUN AND BARKER:

YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 3, 1966, ASKS OUR REVIEW OF THAT PART OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 13, 1966, WHICH DISALLOWED CREDIT FOR AN INCREASE IN COMPENSATION GRANTED MISS ALYCE PEKORS INCIDENT TO A PURPORTED TRANSFER OF MISS PEKORS FROM THE ARMY LIAISON OFFICE, HONG KONG, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON FEBRUARY 17, 1963. ALSO, YOU REQUEST THAT THE SETTLEMENT BE CLARIFIED REGARDING HER REPORTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF HER HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND EFFECTS FROM HONG KONG TO WASHINGTON, D.C.

MISS PEKORS' CASE, AS YOU ARE AWARE, WAS REFERRED HERE FOR CONSIDERATION OF HER INDEBTEDNESS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE REPORTED UNAUTHORIZED TRANSPORTATION OF HER HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND AUTOMOBILE. BECAUSE HER ENTITLEMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION WAS INEXTRICABLY DEPENDENT UPON HER PURPORTED TRANSFER TO A POSITION IN BANGKOK UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IT BECAME NECESSARY TO REVIEW THE APPOINTMENT ASPECT OF MISS PEKORS' CASE. CF. 22 COMP. GEN. 952.

ON AUGUST 15, 1962, WHEN MISS PEKORS WAS OFFERED THE POSITION IN BANGKOK SHE WAS SERVING UNDER AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. ARMY LIAISON OFFICE, HONG KONG, WHICH TERMINATED FEBRUARY 1964. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MISS PEKORS AS WELL AS THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WERE AWARE THAT THE ARMY LIAISON OFFICE COULD NOT PROPERLY RELEASE HER UNTIL A SUITABLE REPLACEMENT WAS OBTAINED AND TRAINED. THE REQUIRED REPLACEMENT WAS NOT EXPECTED TO ARRIVE AT HONG KONG UNTIL ON OR ABOUT JUNE 10, 1963. MISS PEKORS, THEREFORE, CONTINUED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITION WHICH SHE OCCUPIED AT THE ARMY LIAISON OFFICE--- THAT OF INTELLIGENCE AID, GRADE GS-7, $6,835 PER ANNUM--- UNTIL JUNE 10, 1963.

IN THE FACE OF MISS PEKORS COMMITMENT TO THE ARMY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HER RELEASE FOR EMPLOYMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, I.E., THE EXPECTED TIME OF ARRIVAL OF HER REPLACEMENT, THE PURPORTED APPOINTMENT ON FEBRUARY 17, 1963, TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION (FD-7, $7,600 PER ANNUM) IN BANGKOK COULD NOT LAWFULLY TAKE EFFECT UNTIL MISS PEKORS ACTUALLY DEPARTED HONG KONG TO ENTER ON DUTY IN HER POSITION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE PERSONNEL ACTION OF APRIL 2, 1963, PURPORTING TO SEPARATE MISS PEKORS FROM HER EMPLOYMENT WITH THE ARMY LIAISON OFFICE LIKEWISE WAS CONTRARY TO THE ESTABLISHED FACTS OF THE CASE AND SIMILARLY MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS EFFECTIVELY TERMINATING MISS PEKORS' SERVICE WITH THAT OFFICE UNTIL JUNE 10, 1963.

WE MUST, THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT MISS PEKORS WAS OVERPAID DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 17 THROUGH JUNE 10, 1963, AND THAT OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 13, 1966, IS CORRECT.

REGARDING MISS PEKORS' REPORTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF HER GOODS AND EFFECTS FROM HONG KONG TO WASHINGTON, D.C., THE ORDER OF FEBRUARY 10, 1963, AUTHORIZING SUCH MOVEMENT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW SINCE MISS PEKORS' NEW OFFICIAL STATION WAS DESIGNATED AS BANGKOK RATHER THAN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON MARCH 1, 1964, MISS PEKORS WAS PERMANENTLY ASSIGNED TO DUTY IN WASHINGTON AND AT THAT TIME SHE LAWFULLY COULD HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO TRANSPORT HER GOODS AND EFFECTS TO WASHINGTON. THEREFORE, WHILE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ISSUED NO SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY FOR SUCH A MOVEMENT, WE ARE NOT NOW DISPOSED TO FURTHER QUESTION THAT IRREGULARITY.