B-236751, Jan 2, 1990

B-236751: Jan 2, 1990

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Leaves Of Absence - Sick leave - Charging - Retroactive adjustments DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. Baker was charged sick leave for August 25 and 26. The granting of sick leave is a matter primarily within the jurisdiction of the employing agency. We conclude that the agency was neither arbitrary nor capricious in denying Mr.

B-236751, Jan 2, 1990

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - Leaves Of Absence - Sick leave - Charging - Retroactive adjustments DIGEST: This summary letter decision addresses well established rules which have been discussed in previous Comptroller General decisions. To locate substantive decisions addressing this issue, refer to decisions indexed under the above listed index entry.

Michael N. Baker:

Mr. Baker appeals a settlement by our Claims Group which denied his claim for sick leave and pay for a holiday during the last 2 weeks of his employment with the United States Tax Court. /1/

According to the report from the Tax Court, Mr. Baker was charged sick leave for August 25 and 26, 1988, and he called the Tax Court office on August 26 to resign his position. When he returned to the office on September 9, 1988, he submitted a letter of resignation. At that time, Tax Court officials learned he had been enrolled full-time in college the past 2 weeks. Accordingly, the Tax Court refused to approve the 2 days of sick leave, to approve Mr. Baker's use of his remaining sick leave, or to approve payment for the Labor Day holiday.

We concur with the Claims Group determination in this case. The granting of sick leave is a matter primarily within the jurisdiction of the employing agency. Although Mr. Baker contends that he received approval for the use of 40 hours of sick leave and payment for the holiday, we conclude that the agency was neither arbitrary nor capricious in denying Mr. Baker use of sick leave or payment for a holiday under these circumstances.