B-166066, MAR. 19, 1969
Highlights
FC: THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 30. WHICH WAS A FRIDAY. AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING HIS RESIGNATION HE WAS WORKING A MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY TOUR OF DUTY. PRITCHARD'S DAYS OFF WERE APPARENTLY CHANGED TO WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY. PRITCHARD'S SUPERVISOR INFORMED HIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO WORK SATURDAY TO COMPLETE HIS WORKWEEK. HE WAS TOLD HE WOULD BE PAID BECAUSE THE WORK WOULD BE ON HIS TIME CARD. PRITCHARD HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR SATURDAY BECAUSE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PERSONNEL ACTION SEPARATING HIM IS JANUARY 10. THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE IS THAT WHEN AN AUTHORIZED SEPARATION. WE HAVE PERMITTED CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE WHEN THE SEPARATION DID NOT CONFORM TO THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED OR WAS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.
B-166066, MAR. 19, 1969
TO MAJOR G. B. ADAMS, FC:
THIS IS IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTERS OF JANUARY 30, 1969, AND FEBRUARY 11, 1969, REFERENCE DGSC-CF, REQUESTING OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER YOU MAY PAY A VOUCHER FOR $25.82 IN FAVOR OF MR. CHARLES E. PRITCHARD, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF YOUR AGENCY.
MR. PRITCHARD SUBMITTED HIS RESIGNATION TO BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 10, 1969, WHICH WAS A FRIDAY. AT THE TIME OF SUBMITTING HIS RESIGNATION HE WAS WORKING A MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY TOUR OF DUTY. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO HIS TERMINATION DATE, MR. PRITCHARD'S DAYS OFF WERE APPARENTLY CHANGED TO WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY. MR. PRITCHARD'S SUPERVISOR INFORMED HIM THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO WORK SATURDAY TO COMPLETE HIS WORKWEEK. WHEN MR. PRITCHARD QUESTIONED HIS SUPERVISOR ABOUT WORKING THE DAY AFTER HIS RESIGNATION, HE WAS TOLD HE WOULD BE PAID BECAUSE THE WORK WOULD BE ON HIS TIME CARD. MR. PRITCHARD HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR SATURDAY BECAUSE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PERSONNEL ACTION SEPARATING HIM IS JANUARY 10, 1969.
THE LONG-ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE IS THAT WHEN AN AUTHORIZED SEPARATION, BY RESIGNATION OR OTHERWISE, BECOMES AN ACCOMPLISHED FACT IT MAY NOT BE RESCINDED OR SET ASIDE BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. 22 COMP. GEN. 291; 32 ID. 111. HOWEVER, WE HAVE PERMITTED CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THAT RULE WHEN THE SEPARATION DID NOT CONFORM TO THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED OR WAS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. SEE 39 COMP. GEN. 89; B-145957, OCTOBER 25, 1961; AND B-144922, MARCH 14, 1961.
IN THE INSTANT CASE MR. PRITCHARD STATED THAT HE RESIGNED IN THE MIDDLE OF A PAY PERIOD BUT THAT HE GAVE A TWO WEEKS' NOTICE. MR. PRITCHARD'S STATEMENT, TOGETHER WITH HIS SUPERVISOR'S INSISTENCE THAT HE COMPLETE A 40 -HOUR WORKWEEK, INDICATES THE INTENT OF BOTH PARTIES THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RESIGNATION WAS TO BE THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON THE LAST WORKDAY IN THE SECOND WEEK OF THE NOTICE PERIOD. SINCE THE SEPARATION DID NOT CONFORM TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION PAYMENT BE MADE FOR THE WORK PERFORMED, THE SEPARATION DATE MAY BE CHANGED AND THE VOUCHER, WHICH IS RETURNED HEREWITH WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTERS, MAY BE PAID IF OTHERWISE PROPER.