Entitlement to Administrative Leave

The Social Security Administration (SSA) requested a ruling on whether an employee may have an excused absence with pay substituted for leave without pay. The employee was notified by SSA that he had sufficient creditable Federal service to be eligible for discontinued service retirement. The employee chose to take advantage of this early-out retirement, requesting a separation date of December 31, 1979, the last day SSA had the authority to approve such a form of retirement. While the retirement records were being processed, an error in the computing of the employee's service computation date was discovered. The employee was informed of the error and of the possibility that he would not be eligible for early-out retirement. He was advised that, since a final determination could not be made before SSA authority expired, he could elect to go on leave without pay (LWOP) until the matter was resolved and, thereby, preserve the availability of early-out retirement. The employee elected to go on LWOP. It was determined that the employee was ineligible for early-out retirement, and he returned to work after a 2 month absence. He then submitted a claim for compensation for the 2 months absence. He contended that he was misled to his detriment by the errors and the erroneous advice of SSA and that his LWOP should be changed to excused absence with pay or administrative leave. It is the view of GAO that no authority exists for granting such leave to an employee for an extended period of time for the purpose of retroactively correcting an alleged error of his agency. While SSA was remiss in failing to timely verify the employee's creditable service, in improperly computing his service computation date, and in erroneously advising him initially that he was eligible for early retirement, the errors were discovered, and he was informed of them before he went on LWOP. The employee voluntarily placed himself in LWOP status with knowledge that there was a question about his eligibility for early retirement. In these circumstances, there was no unwarranted or unjustified personnel action and, consequently, there is no entitlement to backpay. The claim was denied.