B-198935, NOV 14, 1980

B-198935, NOV 14, 1980

DIGEST: 1. THE CLAIM OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE BEYOND HIS OWN UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS DETAILED TO A HIGHER-GRADE POSITION MUST BE DENIED. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE CONSIDERS CLAIMS BASED SOLELY ON THE WRITTEN RECORD BEFORE IT AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE CLAIMANT TO PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF HIS CLAIM. 2. THERE IS NO BASIS IN LAW FOR PAYING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT A PORTION OF THE AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY SAVED BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEE DID WORK NOT NORMALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS DUTIES.

RUSSELL E. HANN:

TWO ISSUES ARE PRESENTED FOR DECISION. THE FIRST INVOLVES A CLAIM FOR A RETROACTIVE TEMPORARY PROMOTION AND BACK PAY FOR WHAT IS ALLEGED TO BE AN EXTENDED DETAIL TO A HIGHER-GRADED POSITION, AND THE SECOND INVOLVES A REQUEST FOR A SHARE OF THE AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY SAVED WHEN AN EMPLOYEE DID WORK OUTSIDE OF HIS JOB DESCRIPTION. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT BELOW, THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOTH CLAIMS BY OUR CLAIMS GROUP IS SUSTAINED.

MR. RUSSELL E. HANN, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE MARE ISLAND NAVAL SHIPYARD HAS APPEALED TWO SEPARATE SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY OUR CLAIMS GROUP. IN Z-2816856, SEPTEMBER 6, 1979, HE WAS DENIED A RETROACTIVE TEMPORARY PROMOTION AND BACK PAY FOR AN ALLEGEDLY EXTENDED DETAIL FROM HIS POSITION AS A WG-5 WAREHOUSEMAN TO A HIGHER-GRADED POSITION AS A WG 7 SHOP STORES EXPEDITER FROM JULY 20, 1977, TO FEBRUARY 15, 1979. IN Z 2816856, APRIL 17, 1980, HIS CLAIM FOR A SHARE OF THE AMOUNT THE GOVERNMENT SAVED WHEN, AS A WAREHOUSEMAN, HE WAS ORDERED TO CONSTRUCT TWO BATHROOMS, WAS DISALLOWED.

MR. HANN'S OWN STATEMENTS ARE THE ONLY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SUPPORTING HIS CLAIM FOR BACK PAY FOR THE DETAIL. ALL THE STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS FROM THE NAVY SPECIFICALLY DENY THAT HE WAS PERFORMING THE JOB HE ALLEGES THAT HE WAS PERFORMING. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION OF ANY TYPE SUPPORTING MR. HANN'S CLAIM. UNDER OUR REGULATIONS, 4 C.F.R. PARTS 31 AND 32 (1980), 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 MATTER OF JOHN F. SUITUM, B-193912, AUGUST 24, 1979, WE HELD THAT THE CLAIMANT'S OWN UNCORROBORATED STATEMENTS AS TO HIS PERFORMANCE OF HIGHER- GRADE DUTIES ARE INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT A DETAIL OCCURRED. HERE, MR. HANN HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEYOND HIS OWN STATEMENTS TO SHOW THAT HE PERFORMED DUTIES AT A GRADE LEVEL THAT WAS HIGHER THAN THE ONE TO WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED. THE MERE FACT, ACCEPTING MR. HANN'S STATEMENT AS ACCURATE, THAT HE MAY HAVE PERFORMED A FEW OF THE TASKS OF THE HIGHER- LEVEL POSITION DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT HE WAS DETAILED TO AND PERFORMED THE DUTIES OF ANY SUCH HIGHER GRADED POSITION. MATTER OF ELLIS W. DOUGLAS AND JOHNNY L. BELL, B-198185/B-198165, JUNE 4, 1980.

IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO CHARACTERIZE MR. HANN'S SECOND CLAIM. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS DECISION WE WILL ACCEPT AS ACCURATE ALL OF HIS ALLEGATIONS. HE CLAIMS THAT FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT 4 WEEKS, AROUND THE END OF 1978, HE WAS WORKING AS A WAREHOUSEMAN, BUT WAS ORDERED TO BUILD TWO BATHROOMS. HE ATTRIBUTES THIS TO SOME PRIOR EXPERIENCE AS A CARPENTER. MR. HANN ALLEGES THAT BECAUSE HE BUILT THESE BATHROOMS, THE GOVERNMENT SAVED OVER $30,000. IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR HOW THIS SAVINGS WAS CALCULATED. HE STATES THAT HE WAS GIVEN NO FORMAL RECOGNITION FOR HAVING DONE THIS JOB AND HE IS NOW CLAIMING ONE-THIRD OF THE AMOUNT SAVED.

IN ESSENCE, MR. HANN IS CLAIMING THAT THE GOVERNMENT SAVED MONEY BY ORDERING HIM TO DO CARPENTRY WORK NOT NORMALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS DUTIES AS A WAREHOUSEMAN. FOR THIS REASON HE FEELS HE IS ENTITLED TO A PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S SAVINGS. SINCE MR. HANN RECEIVED THE SALARY OF HIS WG-5 POSITION DURING THE PERIOD HE WORKED ON THE BATHROOMS THERE IS NO AUTHORITY TO PAY HIM ANY ADDITIONAL AMOUNT EVEN THOUGH THE WORK MAY NOT HAVE BEEN STRICTLY WITHIN HIS POSITION DESCRIPTION. ACCORDINGLY, MR. HANN'S CLAIM FOR A PORTION OF THE AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY SAVED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS DISALLOWED.