B-197111.OM, L/M, MAR 14, 1980

B-197111.OM: Mar 14, 1980

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CLAIMS DIVISION: THE ISSUE YOU HAVE PRESENTED CONCERNING DETAILS HAS NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION. WAS TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR EMPLOYEES. WHO HAVE SERVED BEYOND THE PROPER TIME LIMITS OF THE DETAIL. WE FEEL THAT THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT AN EMPLOYEE DOES NOT SERVE IN A DETAIL FOR MORE THAN 240 DAYS SINCE. DETAILS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR BRIEF PERIODS. WE NOTE THAT THE INITIAL PERIOD OF A DETAIL BY AN AGENCY IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 120 DAYS WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF DETAIL DOCUMENTS. OUR VIEW IS THAT THE TERM "ONE EXTENSION" MERELY REFERS TO A MAXIMUM PERIOD RATHER THAN THE NUMBER OF DETAIL DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

B-197111.OM, L/M, MAR 14, 1980

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON CLAIM OF FRANK E. BERRY FOR RETROACTIVE TEMPORARY PROMOTION - B-197111-O.M.

DIRECTOR, CLAIMS DIVISION:

THE ISSUE YOU HAVE PRESENTED CONCERNING DETAILS HAS NEVER BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION. HOWEVER, THE PURPOSE OF TURNER -CALDWELL, 55 COMP.GEN. 539 (1975), WAS TO PROVIDE A REMEDY FOR EMPLOYEES, DETAILED TO HIGHER-GRADED POSITIONS, WHO HAVE SERVED BEYOND THE PROPER TIME LIMITS OF THE DETAIL. THUS, ALTHOUGH PARAGRAPH S8 3B(2), FPM CHAPTER 300, REFERS TO ONE EXTENSION, WE FEEL THAT THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS THAT AN EMPLOYEE DOES NOT SERVE IN A DETAIL FOR MORE THAN 240 DAYS SINCE, AS STATED IN FPM CHAPTER 300, S8-4E, DETAILS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR BRIEF PERIODS. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE NOTE THAT THE INITIAL PERIOD OF A DETAIL BY AN AGENCY IS LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 120 DAYS WITHOUT ANY LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF DETAIL DOCUMENTS. OUR VIEW IS THAT THE TERM "ONE EXTENSION" MERELY REFERS TO A MAXIMUM PERIOD RATHER THAN THE NUMBER OF DETAIL DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

THEREFORE, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MR. BERRY SHOULD BE GRANTED A RETROACTIVE PROMOTION AND BACK PAY FROM THE 181ST DAY OF THE DETAIL SINCE THE TWO 60-DAY EXTENSIONS WERE PROPERLY MADE. HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF PARAGRAPH S8-3B(2), WE BELIEVE THAT THE THIRD 60-DAY EXTENSION OF MR. BERRY'S DETAIL WAS IMPROPER AND THAT HE SHOULD BE GRANTED A RETROACTIVE PROMOTION AND BACK PAY FOR THAT PERIOD AND THE PERIOD FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION OF THAT DETAIL UNTIL OCTOBER 29, 1972, WHEN HIS "DETAIL" WAS TERMINATED BY PROMOTION TO GS-14.

WITH REGARD TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, WE BELIEVE THAT AS LONG AS AN EMPLOYEE IS DETAILED TO AN ESTABLISHED POSITION, CLASSIFIED UNDER AN OCCUPATIONAL STANDARD TO A HIGHER PAY OR GRADE LEVEL, HE IS ENTITLED TO BE REIMBURSED AT THE HIGHER RATE FOR AN OVERLONG DETAIL EVEN THOUGH THE DOCUMENT DETAILING HIM LISTS THE POSITION AT A LOWER GRADE.

ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIMANT MAY BE GRANTED A TEMPORARY PROMOTION AND BACK PAY FROM THE 241ST OF HIS DETAIL UNTIL HE WAS PROMOTED IF HIS CLAIM IS OTHERWISE PROPER.