B-162628, JAN. 24, 1968

B-162628: Jan 24, 1968

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

SINCE THERE WAS NO CURRENT DISABILITY APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE CSC AT TIME OF SEPARATION. WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN SUCH LETTER BUT DO NOT FIND ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE AT THE TIME OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 27. TO YOU WAS RENDERED. THERE IS ONE POINT. WE SHOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 27. WE INQUIRED SPECIFICALLY OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT CONCERNING SUCH AVERMENT AND WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR APPLICATIONS FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT WERE ACCOMPANIED BY STANDARD FORM NO. 2801B EXECUTED BY YOUR PRIVATE PHYSICIAN AS WELL AS BY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FORM 3178 EXECUTED BY THE INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE NAVAL ACTIVITY.

B-162628, JAN. 24, 1968

LEAVES OF ABSENCE - SICK DECISION TO FORMER EMPLOYEE OF NAVY SUSTAINING DECISION OF DEC. 27, 1967, CONCERNING SEPARATION FROM SERVICE. SINCE THERE WAS NO CURRENT DISABILITY APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE CSC AT TIME OF SEPARATION, SEPARATION MAY NOT BE REGARDED AS INVALID ENTITLING EMPLOYEE TO SICK LEAVE CREDIT.

TO MR. GEORGE W. MONROE:

YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 1, 1968, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN FORWARDED HERE FOR CONSIDERATION AND REPLY.

WE HAVE CAREFULLY REVIEWED THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN SUCH LETTER BUT DO NOT FIND ANY NEW OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE AT THE TIME OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 27, 1967, TO YOU WAS RENDERED.

THERE IS ONE POINT, HOWEVER, WE SHOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED IN OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 27. THAT MATTER DEALS WITH YOUR AVERMENTS THAT THE NAVY DOCTORS, IN TRANSMITTING YOUR DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATIONS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN 1964 AND IN 1965, DID NOT FURNISH COMPLETE INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR INJURED BACK. WE INQUIRED SPECIFICALLY OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT CONCERNING SUCH AVERMENT AND WERE ADVISED THAT YOUR APPLICATIONS FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT WERE ACCOMPANIED BY STANDARD FORM NO. 2801B EXECUTED BY YOUR PRIVATE PHYSICIAN AS WELL AS BY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION FORM 3178 EXECUTED BY THE INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL OFFICER OF THE NAVAL ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AT THE TIME IT DISAPPROVED YOUR DISABILITY APPLICATION IN 1964 AND AGAIN IN 1965 HAD THE BENEFIT OF THE REPORT OF BOTH YOUR PRIVATE PHYSICIAN AND THE APPROPRIATE NAVY MEDICAL AUTHORITY. AFTER EVALUATING ALL OF SUCH INFORMATION THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION DENIED YOUR APPLICATION IN 1964 AND IN 1965 FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT.

IN VIEW OF SUCH FACTS AND SINCE, AS PREVIOUSLY POINTED OUT, AT THE TIME OF YOUR SEPARATION FROM THE NAVY THERE WAS NO CURRENT DISABILITY APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THERE IS NO BASIS UPON WHICH THIS OFFICE PROPERLY MAY CONCLUDE THAT THE ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY IN EFFECTING YOUR SEPARATION WAS INVALID OR THAT YOU NOW ARE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT FOR THE SICK LEAVE TO YOUR CREDIT AT THE TIME OF SUCH SEPARATION. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS AND THOSE STATED IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 27, 1967, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE CONCLUSION STATED IN THAT DECISION.