Claim for Retroactive Promotion and Backpay

An employee of the General Services Administration (GSA) filed a claim with GSA for a retroactive temporary promotion from grade GS-11 to grade GS-12 for the period November 18, 1974, until June 25, 1976. Subsequently he amended his claim to include the period between June 25, 1976, and July 15, 1978. On October 23, 1978, GSA determined that the claimant had been detailed to a GS-12 position from September 8, 1976, through October 13, 1977, and awarded him a temporary promotion and backpay. By a letter dated November 7, 1978, the claimant requested that GAO review that portion of his claim which was administratively disallowed by GSA. In its action of June 29, 1979, the Claims Division determined that, due to insufficient evidence to show that the claimant had been detailed, he was not eligible for a retroactive temporary promotion at any time during the period of his claim. However, the matter of the overpayment was referred to GSA for waiver under the appropriate statute. In an appeal of the Claims Division decision, it was determined that since the administrative report provided by GSA contained a statement by the claimant's supervisor indicating that he had performed the duties of a GS-12 position from September 8, 1979, until October 13, 1977, the retroactive temporary promotion was permissable under the appropriate statute. In light of this, the matter of a waiver referral for an overpayment was moot, and the settlement issued by GAO on June 29, 1979, was modified to the extent it was inconsistent with the above. In his contention that he was detailed for a longer period of time, the claimant appeared to rely upon the statements or affidavits of his supervisor and others to support his claim. However, his supervisor stated in the administrative report that the detail began on September 8, 1976, and terminated on October 13, 1977. It is the responsibility of a person asserting a claim for a retroactive promotion as a result of an overlong detail to prove all elements of the claim. Since the evidence relied upon by the claimant did not show that he was entitled to a retroactive promotion for the periods of time before or after the period set forth above, that portion of his claim was disallowed.