B-97410, NOV. 21, 1962

B-97410: Nov 21, 1962

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR DISALLOWANCE WAS THAT YOUR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE POINT OF INSPECTION AND YOUR DUTY STATION WAS NOT PERFORMED UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS AND NO WORK WAS PERFORMED DURING THE TRAVEL. DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IN RELATION TO MATTERS COMING BEFORE OUR OFFICE. SUCH DECISIONS ARE NOT BINDING UPON US. 14 COMP. THE MAJORITY OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CURTIS-HANTON CASE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF THE TWO CLAIMS WAS LESS THAN $200. THAT THE SITUS WAS IN CALIFORNIA. 5 U.S.C. 912B) IS EVIDENT FROM THE OPINION. THE TRAVEL MUST HAVE INVOLVED THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK OR BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS. WE ARE INFORMED THAT CERTAIN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COLLECTOR DEALT MERELY WITH THE INTERNAL PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING ANY CLAIMS THAT MIGHT BE RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE CURTIS-HANTON CASE AND THAT NO DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN FOR ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS.

B-97410, NOV. 21, 1962

MR. CLARENCE E. STOTLER:

ON SEPTEMBER 6, 1962, YOU REQUESTED RECONSIDERATION OF OUR SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 30, 1962, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR EXTRA COMPENSATION IN ADDITION TO THAT ALREADY RECEIVED UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 2, 1931, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 342C, ON ACCOUNT OF TRAVEL TIME OUTSIDE OF YOUR REGULAR HOURS OF DUTY, IN CONNECTION WITH YOUR DUTIES AS AN IMMIGRANT INSPECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THE SUBSTANCE OF OUR DISALLOWANCE WAS THAT YOUR TRAVEL BETWEEN THE POINT OF INSPECTION AND YOUR DUTY STATION WAS NOT PERFORMED UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS AND NO WORK WAS PERFORMED DURING THE TRAVEL, SO THAT THE TRAVEL INVOLVED COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS DUTY TIME UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAW AND REGULATIONS, OUR DECISION IN 37 COMP. GEN. 276 HAVING BEEN CITED AS AUTHORITY.

YOU REQUEST RECONSIDERATION UPON THE BASIS OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS IN AWARDING JUDGMENTS IN THE CASE OF LON L. CURTIS AND RAYMOND B. HANTON V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 369 60, DECIDED FEBRUARY 7, 1962.

DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS ARE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IN RELATION TO MATTERS COMING BEFORE OUR OFFICE; HOWEVER, SUCH DECISIONS ARE NOT BINDING UPON US. 14 COMP. GEN. 648; 31 ID. 73.

THE MAJORITY OPINION ACCOMPANYING THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CURTIS-HANTON CASE POINTED OUT THAT THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF THE TWO CLAIMS WAS LESS THAN $200; THAT BOTH PARTIES WANTED THE MATTER SETTLED; THAT THE SITUS WAS IN CALIFORNIA; AND THAT THE EXPENSES OF THE TRIAL WOULD BE ALL OUT OF PROPORTION TO THE SUM INVOLVED. NO DETAILED CONSIDERATION OF THE STATUTES INVOLVED (ACT OF FEBRUARY 13, 1911, AS AMENDED, 19 U.S. 267, AND SECTION 204 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 912B) IS EVIDENT FROM THE OPINION. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CANNOT REGARD THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CITED CASE AS CONSTITUTING A DECISION ON THE LEGAL MERITS SUCH AS WOULD INDUCE US TO CONSIDER RETREATING FROM OUR PRESENT POSITION, NAMELY, THAT IN ORDER FOR TRAVEL TIME TO BE CONSIDERED AS COMPENSABLE OVERTIME, THE TRAVEL MUST HAVE INVOLVED THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK OR BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDER ARDUOUS CONDITIONS, UNLESS A LAW OR REGULATION HAVING THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF LAW PROVIDES OTHERWISE.

CONCERNING YOUR REFERENCE TO A LETTER FROM THE FISCAL ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS TO THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DETROIT, MICHIGAN, WE ARE INFORMED THAT CERTAIN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COLLECTOR DEALT MERELY WITH THE INTERNAL PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING ANY CLAIMS THAT MIGHT BE RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE CURTIS-HANTON CASE AND THAT NO DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN FOR ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE CLAIMS.

UPON REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT OF AUGUST 30, 1962, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.