Claim for Hazardous Duty Differential

B-197978: Jun 5, 1980

Additional Materials:


Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800

An Army employee claimed hazardous duty differential for exposure to allegedly toxic compounds in tobacco smoke. The Army disallowed the claim because the exposure to the hazard was not irregular or intermittent as required by the statute. GAO has held that the authority to determine whether a particular situation warrants payment of a hazardous duty differential is vested in the employing agency. It will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency officials unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the agency's decision was wrong or that it was arbitrary and capricious. Since the record did not indicate that the Army was either wrong or arbitrary and capricious, GAO sustained the prior disallowance.

Oct 18, 2017

Oct 17, 2017

Oct 13, 2017

Oct 12, 2017

Oct 11, 2017

  • Daekee Global Company, Ltd.
    We dismiss the protest because the protester has not established that it is an interested party.

Oct 10, 2017

Looking for more? Browse all our products here