B-149600, NOV. 21, 1966
Highlights
THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 14. ARE OF RECORD AND WERE FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE IN RENDERING OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 14. THAT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF WAS TO BE MADE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE FAR EAST COMMAND BY THE ISSUANCE OF FORMS NO. 50. THERE IS NO RECORD OF A FORM NO. 50 HAVING ISSUED DESIGNATING YOU AS A CHIEF ENGINEER ON AND AFTER THE APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 13. WE HAVE NO BASIS ON WHICH TO HOLD THAT MANNING SCALE NO. 7 WAS APPLICABLE IN YOUR CASE. YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF OUR OFFICE TO ISSUE A STANDARD FORM 50 FOR EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FOR PERSONNEL OF OUR OFFICE. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER.
B-149600, NOV. 21, 1966
TO MR. LARS H. ROLFSEN:
THIS REFERS TO LETTER OF OCTOBER 21, 1966, WITH ENCLOSURES, CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY DURING THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 18, 1952, TO FEBRUARY 1, 1954.
THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 14, 1962, AND AUGUST 12, 1966, B-149600, TO YOU AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. THE ENCLOSURES FURNISHED WITH THE LETTER OF OCTOBER 21, 1966, ARE OF RECORD AND WERE FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE IN RENDERING OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 14, 1962, AND AUGUST 12, 1966.
IT APPEARS TO BE YOUR CONTENTION THAT BY LETTER OF NOVEMBER 13, 1952, THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, DIRECTED THAT MANNING SCALE NO. 7 BE PLACED IN EFFECT BUT THAT THE MARINE PERSONNEL OFFICER FAILED TO CARRY OUT SUCH ORDER. WE POINT OUT THAT THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 13, 1952, MERELY CONTAINED AN APPROVAL OF MANNING SCALE NO. 7, FOR THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THAT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF WAS TO BE MADE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE FAR EAST COMMAND BY THE ISSUANCE OF FORMS NO. 50, WHERE APPROPRIATE. THIS PROCEDURE APPEARS TO BE SUPPORTED BY THE MARINE PERSONNEL REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME. COPIES OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THE FAR EAST COMMAND IN 1953 FURTHER SUPPORTS THAT VIEW.
SINCE AS INDICATED IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 12, 1966, THERE IS NO RECORD OF A FORM NO. 50 HAVING ISSUED DESIGNATING YOU AS A CHIEF ENGINEER ON AND AFTER THE APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 13, 1952, REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE HAVE NO BASIS ON WHICH TO HOLD THAT MANNING SCALE NO. 7 WAS APPLICABLE IN YOUR CASE.
CONCERNING THE REQUEST THAT WE ISSUE A STANDARD FORM 50 (NOTIFICATION OF PERSONNEL ACTION) RETROACTIVELY IN YOUR NAME, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT IT IS NOT A FUNCTION OF OUR OFFICE TO ISSUE A STANDARD FORM 50 FOR EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN FOR PERSONNEL OF OUR OFFICE. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER.
ACCORDINGLY, THE PRIOR ACTION TAKEN IN DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.