Skip to main content

B-127817, NOV. 6, 1956

B-127817 Nov 06, 1956
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

STRAILMAN IN CONNECTION WITH HIS CLAIM FOR $750 WHICH WAS WITHHELD FROM THE AMOUNT OTHERWISE DUE HIM FOR A PERIOD OF SEPARATION FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE. STRAILMAN WAS RESTORED TO DUTY UNDER SECTION 22.503 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS AND HAS BEEN PAID THE COMPENSATION OTHERWISE DUE FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPARATION. IT WAS STATED THAT THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AT THAT TIME WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO ENABLE THIS OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIS EARNINGS WERE SUCH AS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO HIM FOR THE PERIOD OF HIS SEPARATION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE. STRAILMAN MAKES THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION: "/1) THE $750.00 REPORTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS GROSS EARNINGS WAS A CONSULTING FEE FROM A CLIENT FOR ANALYSIS OF A COMPLEX CONTRACT SPECIFICATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIRCUITRY AND METHODS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS.

View Decision

B-127817, NOV. 6, 1956

TO THE HONORABLE JEROME C. HUNSAKER, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS:

BY LETTER OF OCTOBER 25, 1956, YOUR EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FORWARDED AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT FROM MR. GILBERT T. STRAILMAN IN CONNECTION WITH HIS CLAIM FOR $750 WHICH WAS WITHHELD FROM THE AMOUNT OTHERWISE DUE HIM FOR A PERIOD OF SEPARATION FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE. MR. STRAILMAN WAS RESTORED TO DUTY UNDER SECTION 22.503 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS AND HAS BEEN PAID THE COMPENSATION OTHERWISE DUE FOR THE PERIOD OF SEPARATION, LESS $750 REPORTED AS THE AMOUNT EARNED BY HIM FROM OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF SEPARATION.

IN OUR DECISION TO YOU OF MAY 17, 1956, IT WAS STATED THAT THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AT THAT TIME WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC TO ENABLE THIS OFFICE TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIS EARNINGS WERE SUCH AS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO HIM FOR THE PERIOD OF HIS SEPARATION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THIS OFFICE. IN HIS PRESENT STATEMENT MR. STRAILMAN MAKES THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION:

"/1) THE $750.00 REPORTED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AS GROSS EARNINGS WAS A CONSULTING FEE FROM A CLIENT FOR ANALYSIS OF A COMPLEX CONTRACT SPECIFICATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIRCUITRY AND METHODS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. IT REQUIRED CONSIDERABLE DRAWING AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH WORK WHICH WAS DONE IN MY HOME. MUCH OF IT WAS DONE IN THE EVENING AND OVER WEEK ENDS.

"/2) THE WORK WAS DONE DURING THE PERIOD OF MY IMPROPER AND UNWARRANTED SEPARATION. AS POINTED OUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT I HAD BEEN IMPROPERLY SEPARATED. I HAVE FROM TIME TO TIME ACCEPTED CONSULTING WORK WHILE EMPLOYED WITH N.A.C.A. EXAMPLES ARE THE CONTRACTS WITH THE SVERDRUP AND PARCEL FIRM OF ST. LOUIS WHICH EXTENDED OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. YOUR DIRECTOR IS QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

"/3) NO ITEMIZATION OF OVERHEAD COSTS AND TRAVEL IS POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME SINCE NO SUCH RECORDS WERE KEPT. THESE COSTS CONSISTED OF RENT, LIGHT, HEAT, TELEPHONE ETC FOR WORKING SPACE AND DRAWING MATERIALS. THE TRAVEL CONSISTED OF THREE AUTOMOBILE TRIPS TO WASHINGTON, D.C. THE $262.50 ITEM OF EXPENSES WAS ARRIVED AT BY TAKING 35 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FEE WHICH IS ACCORDING TO GOOD ACCOUNTING PRACTICE.

"/4) THE ITEM OF $600.00 FOR LEGAL EXPENSES MAY BE ITEMIZED AS FOLLOWS: $350.00 WAS FOR THE PROCESSING OF MY APPEAL FROM MY IMPROPER AND UNWARRANTED SEPARATION. $250.00 WAS FOR LEGAL COSTS FOR INVESTIGATING THE PROPRIETY AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF ACCEPTING CONSULTING FEES FROM CONTRACTORS ENGAGED IN CONTRACT WORK FOR N.A.C.A. A NUMBER OF UNSOLICITED OFFERS WERE TENDERED ME BY SUCH CONTRACTORS AND WERE REJECTED ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL AFTER THOROUGH INVESTIGATION BY THEM.'

IF YOUR OFFICE HAS NO INFORMATION WHICH WOULD CONTRAVENE MR. STRAILMAN'S ALLEGATION THAT THE WORK WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN REGARDLESS OF HIS SEPARATION FROM THE FEDERAL SERVICE, THE FACTS SO STATED WOULD APPEAR TO ESTABLISH HIS RIGHT TO THE $750 CLAIMED PURSUANT TO THE DECISIONS OF OUR OFFICE IN 32 COMP. GEN. 408, AND 34 ID. 384.

MR. STRAILMAN ALSO CLAIMS INTEREST ON THE $750, CITING IN SUPPORT OF THAT CLAIM THE FACT THAT INTEREST IS PAYABLE ON REFUND OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES. IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT INTEREST IS NOT PAYABLE UPON CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES EXCEPT WHEN INTEREST IS STIPULATED IN LEGAL AND PROPER CONTRACTS, OR WHERE THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED BY STATUTE. 27 COMP. GEN. 690. INTEREST ON REFUND OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAXES IS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 6611 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST UPON THE PRESENT CLAIM.

IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER OBJECTION YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO PAY MR. STRAILMAN THE CLAIM OF $750 WITHOUT INTEREST. IN VIEW OF THIS CONCLUSION IT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS TIME TO PASS UPON THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HIM AS CANCELING THE REPORTED OUTSIDE EARNINGS.

GAO Contacts

Office of Public Affairs