B-175279, JUL 17, 1972
Highlights
AS THE CLAIM IS BASED ON AN ERROR OF FACT. CLAIMANT'S POSITION WAS NEVER RECLASSIFIED. IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE CLAIM SETTLEMENT THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION TO RECLASSIFY YOUR POSITION TO A GS-12 POSITION WAS NEVER APPROVED AND THAT YOU WERE NOT THE INCUMBENT OF A GS-12 POSITION ON AUGUST 28. YOU WERE ADVISED TO APPEAL TO THIS OFFICE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOUR POSITION HAD BEEN RECLASSIFIED AS OF FEBRUARY 3. THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION ACTION HAD BEEN FINALLY APPROVED THE DEPARTMENT WOULD GENERALLY HAVE BEEN UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PROMOTE YOU TO THAT POSITION. YOU WERE NOT PROMOTED. IN REGARD TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THE "NAVY INDICATES THE ONLY REASON I WAS NOT PROMOTED WAS THAT I FAILED AN EXAMINATION ***" AND THAT ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO ALSO FAILED WAS PROMOTED.
B-175279, JUL 17, 1972
CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE - CLAIM FOR HIGHER PAY - POSITION RECLASSIFICATION AFFIRMING DENIAL OF CLAIM OF ROBERT B. PENTICOFF FOR ADDITIONAL PAY ALLEGEDLY DUE AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO PROMOTE CLAIMANT AFTER A RECLASSIFICATION OF HIS POSITION. AS THE CLAIM IS BASED ON AN ERROR OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY DENIED. CLAIMANT'S POSITION WAS NEVER RECLASSIFIED; THEREFORE, NO BASIS FOR HIGHER PAY EXISTS.
TO MR. ROBERT B. PENTICOFF:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 28, 1972, APPEALING THE APRIL 19, 1972 SETTLEMENT OF OUR TRANSPORTATION AND CLAIMS DIVISION WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL PAY AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO PROMOTE YOU AFTER THE ALLEGED RECLASSIFICATION OF YOUR POSITION.
IT WAS EXPLAINED IN THE CLAIM SETTLEMENT THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION TO RECLASSIFY YOUR POSITION TO A GS-12 POSITION WAS NEVER APPROVED AND THAT YOU WERE NOT THE INCUMBENT OF A GS-12 POSITION ON AUGUST 28, 1966, AND THEREFORE THAT YOUR REASSIGNMENT TO POSITION DESCRIPTION 6851 DID NOT OPERATE TO REDUCE YOUR PAY.
IN LETTER OF APRIL 15, 1970, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, YOU WERE ADVISED TO APPEAL TO THIS OFFICE ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOUR POSITION HAD BEEN RECLASSIFIED AS OF FEBRUARY 3, 1966. IF IN FACT, THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION ACTION HAD BEEN FINALLY APPROVED THE DEPARTMENT WOULD GENERALLY HAVE BEEN UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO PROMOTE YOU TO THAT POSITION. THE POSITION HAD NOT, HOWEVER, BEEN RECLASSIFIED, AND YOU WERE NOT PROMOTED. AS EXPLAINED IN THE CLAIM SETTLEMENT, YOUR REASSIGNMENT ON AUGUST 28, 1966, TO THE POSITION CLASSIFIED AS BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING ANALYST, GS 504-11, DID NOT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE OPERATE TO REDUCE YOUR PAY.
IN REGARD TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE THE "NAVY INDICATES THE ONLY REASON I WAS NOT PROMOTED WAS THAT I FAILED AN EXAMINATION ***" AND THAT ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO ALSO FAILED WAS PROMOTED, THE RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION. THIS CONTENTION WAS CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED IN LETTER TO YOU DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 1969, FROM THE OFFICE OF CIVILIAN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THEREIN THAT THE WRITTEN TEST WAS AN EVALUATION FACTOR ONLY. THIS WAS PURSUANT TO BUSANDA ORDER 7-7. THAT ORDER STATES THAT WRITTEN TEST SCORES ARE ONLY ONE FACTOR OF FIVE. THEREFORE, THE FAILURE TO PROMOTE WAS NOT BASED SOLELY UPON YOUR FAILING THE EXAMINATION SO AS TO ESTABLISH DISCRIMINATION SUCH AS YOU CONTEND.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 19, 1972, IS HEREBY AFFIRMED.