B-162483, JAN. 9, 1968

B-162483: Jan 9, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SINCE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT OVERTIME WORK WAS OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED CLAIM MUST BE DISALLOWED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM YOU WERE A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. WERE ASSIGNED BY THAT HEADQUARTERS TO PERFORM DUTY WITH THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS NAMED ABOVE. YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE ON THE GROUND THAT THE OVERTIME WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED BY YOU WAS NEITHER OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED NOR APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 201 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945. YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE OVERTIME FOR WHICH YOU NOW SEEK COMPENSATION WAS EVER AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY AN OFFICIAL WHO POSSESSED SUCH AUTHORITY.

B-162483, JAN. 9, 1968

COMPENSATION - OVERTIME DECISION TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF ARMY FOR OVERTIME AND HOLIDAY PAY WHILE ASSIGNED TO TRANSPORTATION INAUGURATION SUBCOMMITTEE AND ASSOCIATION OF U.S. ARMY. SINCE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW THAT OVERTIME WORK WAS OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED CLAIM MUST BE DISALLOWED.

TO MR. HOBART V. EROH:

BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 30, 1967, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 15, 1967, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR: (1) OVERTIME WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 4, 1964, THROUGH JANUARY 24, 1965, WHILE ASSIGNED TO THE TRANSPORTATION INAUGURATION SUB-COMMITTEE, AND (2) OVERTIME WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED DURING THE PERIOD OCTOBER 22, THROUGH 28, 1965, AS TRANSPORTATION OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF THE ANNUAL CONVENTION ACTIVITIES FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY. ALSO, YOU CLAIM HOLIDAY PAY FOR SERVICES ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED ON INAUGURATION DAY, JANUARY 20, 1965.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM YOU WERE A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, AND WERE ASSIGNED BY THAT HEADQUARTERS TO PERFORM DUTY WITH THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS NAMED ABOVE.

YOUR CLAIM FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION WAS DISALLOWED BY THE CLAIMS DIVISION OF OUR OFFICE ON THE GROUND THAT THE OVERTIME WORK ALLEGEDLY PERFORMED BY YOU WAS NEITHER OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED NOR APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 201 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 911 (NOW 5 U.S.C. 5542), WHICH READS, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

"ALL HOURS OF WORK OFFICIALLY ORDERED OR APPROVED IN EXCESS OF FORTY HOURS IN ANY ADMINISTRATIVE WORKWEEK PERFORMED BY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES TO WHOM THIS SUBCHAPTER APPLIES SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE OVERTIME WORK *

ADDITIONALLY, SECTION 550.111 (C) OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION'S REGULATIONS PROVIDES:

"OVERTIME WORK IN EXCESS OF ANY INCLUDED IN A REGULARLY SCHEDULED ADMINISTRATIVE WORKWEEK MAY BE ORDERED OR APPROVED ONLY IN WRITING BY AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE TO WHOM THIS AUTHORITY HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED.'

OTHER THAN THE STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN YOUR LETTERS, YOU HAVE FURNISHED NO EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE OVERTIME FOR WHICH YOU NOW SEEK COMPENSATION WAS EVER AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY AN OFFICIAL WHO POSSESSED SUCH AUTHORITY. ON THE CONTRARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY REPORTS THAT OVERTIME WORK DURING SUCH DETAILS WAS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED. ALSO, THAT DEPARTMENT FURTHER REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"* * * THE CHIEF OF STAFF, MDW, IS THE ONLY OFFICER IN THE HEADQUARTERS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE OVERTIME. OVERTIME MUST BE REQUESTED AND JUSTIFIED BY CHIEFS OF OFFICES THROUGH THE MDW COMPTROLLER TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF, WHO APPROVES OR DISAPPROVES THE REQUEST IN WRITING. HE DID NOT ORDER OR APPROVE IN WRITING ANY OF THE OVERTIME CLAIMED BY MR. EROH. NO OFFICIAL OF THE INAUGURAL COMMITTEE OR THE AUSA POSSESSED AUTHORITY TO AUTHORIZE OR APPROVE OVERTIME. THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE DETAIL OF MR. EROH TO EITHER OF THESE AGENCIES. * * *"

SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF RECORD FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE OVERTIME WORK WAS OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISALLOW YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CLAIM FOR HOLIDAY PAY FOR SERVICES PERFORMED ON JANUARY 20, 1965, YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORTS THAT YOUR TIME CARD FOR THAT PERIOD FAILS TO SHOW THAT YOU PERFORMED DUTY ON THAT DAY. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SHOWING SUCH OFFICIAL DOCUMENT TO BE IN ERROR, THERE EXISTS NO BASIS TO ALLOW YOUR CLAIM FOR HOLIDAY PAY.

CONCERNING YOUR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING A FURTHER APPEAL FROM OUR DECISION, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT UNDER THE LAW THE DECISIONS OF OUR OFFICE ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. 31 U.S.C. 44 AND 74. WHILE THERE IS NO PROCEDURE FOR APPEALING FROM SUCH DECISION, WE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 1346 AND 1491 OF TITLE 28, U.S.C. CONCERNING MATTERS COGNIZABLE IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.