B-193912, AUG 24, 1979
Highlights
HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DETAIL OCCURRED AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO BACK PAY. SUITUM HAS APPEALED THE DISALLOWANCE OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE TEMPORARY PROMOTION WITH BACK PAY FOR AN EXTENDED DETAIL TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION. THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IS SUSTAINED. SUITUM WAS EMPLOYED AS AN ELECTRONICS MECHANIC GRADE WG-9. HE WAS ASSIGNED TO AND PERFORMED THE SAME DUTIES AS OTHER EMPLOYEES. IN HIS INITIAL CLAIM HE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY NO RECORD OF HIS ASSIGNMENT. SUITUM AS HIS FIRST LEVEL SUPERVISORS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WERE INTERVIEWED IN JANUARY 1978. SUITUM PERFORMED ONLY TASKS THAT WERE WITHIN HIS JOB DESCRIPTION.
B-193912, AUG 24, 1979
DIGEST: WHERE AN EMPLOYEE PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN ALLEGEDLY EXTENDED DETAIL TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION OTHER THAN HIS OWN UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS, HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT A DETAIL OCCURRED AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO BACK PAY.
JOHN F. SUITUM - BACK PAY - EXTENDED DETAIL:
MR. JOHN F. SUITUM HAS APPEALED THE DISALLOWANCE OF HIS CLAIM THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE TEMPORARY PROMOTION WITH BACK PAY FOR AN EXTENDED DETAIL TO A HIGHER GRADE POSITION. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION IS SUSTAINED.
MR. SUITUM WAS EMPLOYED AS AN ELECTRONICS MECHANIC GRADE WG-9, AT MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA. HE ALLEGES THAT FROM JUNE 1973 THROUGH DECEMBER 29, 1976, HE WAS ASSIGNED TO AND PERFORMED THE SAME DUTIES AS OTHER EMPLOYEES, WHO HELD POSITIONS AT THE GRADE WG-11, 12 AND 13 LEVELS. IN HIS INITIAL CLAIM HE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY NO RECORD OF HIS ASSIGNMENT, BUT PROVIDED A LIST OF EMPLOYEES AND SUPERVISORS WITH WHOM HE WORKED DURING THE PERIOD OF HIS CLAIM.
HIS AGENCY FOUND NO OFFICIAL RECORD DOCUMENTING THE ALLEGED ASSIGNMENT. WHEN TWO OF THE THREE EMPLOYEES NAMED BY MR. SUITUM AS HIS FIRST LEVEL SUPERVISORS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION WERE INTERVIEWED IN JANUARY 1978, THEY BOTH STATED THAT, TO THE BEST OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE, MR. SUITUM PERFORMED ONLY TASKS THAT WERE WITHIN HIS JOB DESCRIPTION, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF HIGHER GRADE EMPLOYEES. THE THIRD EMPLOYEE WAS NO LONGER AVAILABLE FOR COMMENT.
THE CLAIM WAS DENIED BY THE AIR FORCE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS DETAILED TO A HIGHER GRADED POSITION, AS REQUIRED BY OUR DECISIONS. OUR CLAIMS DIVISION, IN SETTLEMENT DATED OCTOBER 25, 1978, DISALLOWED MR. SUITUM'S CLAIM FOR ESSENTIALLY THE SAME REASON.
IN HIS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, MR. SUITUM REPEATS HIS PRIOR ALLEGATIONS AND REQUESTS A HEARING. UNDER OUR REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. PARTS 31 AND 32 (1977), WE CONSIDER CLAIMS BASED SOLELY ON THE WRITTEN RECORD BEFORE US. THE BURDEN IS ON THE CLAIMANT TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF HIS CLAIM. MATTER OF JOHN R. FIGARD, B-181700, JANUARY 18, 1978, AND MATTER OF NATHAN LESOWITZ B-185766, JUNE 15, 1977.
IN THIS CASE, MR. SUITUM HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEYOND HIS OWN UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS TO SHOW THAT HE PERFORMED DUTIES AT A GRADE LEVEL THAT WAS HIGHER THAN THE ONE TO WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED. THE FACT THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN ORGANIZATIONALLY ASSIGNED TO A SECTION STAFFED WITH HIGHER GRADE POSITIONS DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS DETAILED TO AND PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF ANY SUCH HIGHER GRADE POSITION. IN THE ABSENCE OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING MR. SUITUM'S CLAIM WE MUST SUSTAIN ITS DISALLOWANCE BY OUR CLAIMS DIVISION.