Skip to main content

B-153666, OCT. 2, 1964

B-153666 Oct 02, 1964
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

YOU SAY THAT YOU FEEL THAT THE DUTY FOR THE ABOVE PERIOD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED STANDBY DUTY AND THAT YOU ARE CONFUSED AS TO THE REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THAT PERIOD. STANDBY DUTY" WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS RESTRICTED TO HIS QUARTERS OR OFFICE AND "ON-CALL DUTY" WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS PERMITTED TO GO ANYWHERE ON THE BASE BUT REMAIN SUBJECT TO CALL. THE PAYMENT AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE TO YOU ON A STANDBY DUTY BASIS FOR NONWORKDAYS WAS CONTRARY TO THE REGULATIONS. WERE APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL DUTY SERVICE. NO PROOF EXISTS THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN YOUR QUARTERS OR OFFICE IN A STANDBY STATUS OR THAT SUCH A STATUS WAS OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED OR ESTABLISHED. DURING WHICH PERTINENT RECORDS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND REGULATION RAISES THE QUESTION OF LACHES.

View Decision

B-153666, OCT. 2, 1964

TO MR. GEORGE S. L. WILSON:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, REQUESTS FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL OVERTIME FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 1954, TO JANUARY 31, 1958, WHEN ASSIGNED TO SPECIAL DUTY SERVICE.

THE INFORMATION GIVEN IN YOUR LETTER PRESENTS NO ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH WOULD FORM A BASIS FOR REVISING OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 11, 1964, IN WHICH WE HELD THAT NO BASIS EXISTS FOR ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. HOWEVER, YOU SAY THAT YOU FEEL THAT THE DUTY FOR THE ABOVE PERIOD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED STANDBY DUTY AND THAT YOU ARE CONFUSED AS TO THE REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR THAT PERIOD.

WE POINT OUT THAT THE REGULATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ,STANDBY DUTY" WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS RESTRICTED TO HIS QUARTERS OR OFFICE AND "ON-CALL DUTY" WHEN AN EMPLOYEE WAS PERMITTED TO GO ANYWHERE ON THE BASE BUT REMAIN SUBJECT TO CALL. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE PAYMENT AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE TO YOU ON A STANDBY DUTY BASIS FOR NONWORKDAYS WAS CONTRARY TO THE REGULATIONS, WHICH PROVIDED THAT THE ON- CALL PROVISIONS, NOT THE STANDBY DUTY PROVISIONS, WERE APPLICABLE TO SPECIAL DUTY SERVICE. NO PROOF EXISTS THAT YOU WERE REQUIRED TO REMAIN IN YOUR QUARTERS OR OFFICE IN A STANDBY STATUS OR THAT SUCH A STATUS WAS OFFICIALLY AUTHORIZED OR ESTABLISHED. FINALLY, THE FACT THAT YOU WAITED 8 1/2 YEARS TO MAKE A CLAIM, DURING WHICH PERTINENT RECORDS HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF AS PROVIDED BY LAW AND REGULATION RAISES THE QUESTION OF LACHES, THAT IS, WHETHER CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM SHOULD BE BARRED BY FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY CLAIM.

SINCE YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 21, 1964, PRESENTS NO FURTHER EVIDENCE WARRANTING ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM, OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 11, 1964, IS AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs