B-162677, AUG. 28, 1968
Highlights
THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER OF JULY 30. SINCE THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE WERE THOROUGHLY SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 30 WE SHALL NOT REPEAT THEM HERE. 1967) YOU WERE ADVISED BY OFFICIALS OF THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO REFUND THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF YOUR LUMP-SUM LEAVE PAYMENT IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE YOUR BEING CARRIED IN A DUAL PAY STATUS. YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT STATEMENT ALLEGING THAT YOU WERE NOT INFORMED OF THE REFUND REQUIREMENT UNTIL MID-NOVEMBER 1967. IN CONNECTION WITH OUR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CASE WE WERE FURNISHED A STATEMENT SIGNED BY TWO APPOINTMENT SUPERVISORS (MRS. HE WAS ADVISED BY MRS. RUSSELL THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO REPAY ANY MONEY HE HAD RECEIVED THAT COVERED TIME AFTER 12 SEPTEMBER 1967 AS HE COULD NOT BE IN A DUAL PAY STATUS.
B-162677, AUG. 28, 1968
TO MR. JAMES M. WHITE:
THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 8, 1968, WITH ENCLOSURE, CONCERNING THE REFUND OF YOUR LUMP-SUM LEAVE PAYMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. THE MATTER WAS THE SUBJECT OF OUR LETTER OF JULY 30, 1968 (B-162677), TO CONGRESSMAN ABBITT, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED YOU BY MR. ABBITT.
SINCE THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE WERE THOROUGHLY SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 30 WE SHALL NOT REPEAT THEM HERE.
IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 30 WE ADVISED CONGRESSMAN ABBITT THAT AT THE TIME OF YOUR REINSTATEMENT (SEPTEMBER 13, 1967) YOU WERE ADVISED BY OFFICIALS OF THE NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO REFUND THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF YOUR LUMP-SUM LEAVE PAYMENT IN ORDER TO PRECLUDE YOUR BEING CARRIED IN A DUAL PAY STATUS. YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT STATEMENT ALLEGING THAT YOU WERE NOT INFORMED OF THE REFUND REQUIREMENT UNTIL MID-NOVEMBER 1967.
IN CONNECTION WITH OUR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CASE WE WERE FURNISHED A STATEMENT SIGNED BY TWO APPOINTMENT SUPERVISORS (MRS. MAPES AND MRS. RUSSELL) AND AN APPOINTMENT CLERK (MRS. HILL) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, READING IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
"AT THE TIME MR. WHITE REPORTED, HE WAS ADVISED BY MRS. HILL AND MRS. RUSSELL THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO REPAY ANY MONEY HE HAD RECEIVED THAT COVERED TIME AFTER 12 SEPTEMBER 1967 AS HE COULD NOT BE IN A DUAL PAY STATUS. WAS ADVISED THAT IF HE DID NOT DESIRE TO REPAY, HE WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF HIS COMMUTABLE LEAVE PAYMENT, AND IF THIS WAS DONE HE WOULD HAVE A BREAK IN SERVICE AND WE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE VACANCIES AT THAT TIME. THEY INFORMED HIM THAT I WAS ON LEAVE AND THEY WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO TALK WITH HIM. THEY DID NOT PUT HIM TO WORK UNTIL THE NEXT DAY AT WHICH TIME I RETURNED AND THE ABOVE WAS EXPLAINED BY ME IN FRONT OF MR. WHITE, MRS. HILL, AND MRS. RUSSELL. MR. WHITE INFORMED US THAT HIS ONLY DESIRE WAS TO SECURE IMMEDIATE EMPLOYMENT, WHICH WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN REPAYING LEAVE MONEY.'
WHERE THERE IS A DISPUTE BETWEEN A CLAIMANT AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AS TO THE FACTS, IT LONG HAS BEEN THE RULE OF THIS OFFICE TO ACCEPT AS CONTROLLING THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS FURNISHED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWING THE INCORRECTNESS OF SUCH STATEMENT. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY YOU.
ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR ALTERING OUR VIEWS IN THE MATTER AS SET FORTH IN OUR LETTER OF JULY 30, 1968.