B-146009, MAY 5, 1965
Highlights
HE IDENTIFIED SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF THE FOREGOING LETTER WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: "1) COMPLETE DUTY OFFICE ROSTERS DESIGNATING NAMES AND DATES DUTY WAS TO BE SERVED AND THE DUTY OFFICER LOGS REFLECTING ACTUAL DUTY SERVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL BY DATES AND HOURS FROM JULY 1. 1961. "2) DUTY OFFICER LOGS SHOWING ACTUAL DATES DUTY WAS PERFORMED FROM JULY 1. 1961. "3) PARTIAL COMBINATIONS OF ITEMS 1) AND 2) ABOVE BUT NOT COVERING THE FULL PERIOD. "4) DUTY OFFICER ROSTERS AND NO DUTY OFFICER LOGS. "5) NO RECORDS WHATSOEVER EXCEPT THOSE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY INDIVIDUALS. THE MEETING WAS HELD IN MR. THE MATTER WAS FULLY DISCUSSED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN MANY OF THOSE CLAIMS THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SO THAT THEY CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAPP AND HAWKINS CASES.
B-146009, MAY 5, 1965
TO THE HONORABLE BUFORD ELLINGTON, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
IN A LETTER DATED APRIL 2, 1965, MR. F. P. MCINTYRE, CHIEF, AUDIT AND FISCAL BRANCH OF YOUR OFFICE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, POINTED OUT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS CONCERNING OVERTIME WORK PERFORMED BY CERTAIN DUTY OFFICERS, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING, UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THOSE IN THE RAPP AND HAWKINS CASES, CT.CL. NOS. 70-62 AND 121- 62, RESPECTIVELY, DECIDED OCTOBER 16, 1964, WHEREIN THE COURT AWARDED JUDGMENTS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS.
HE IDENTIFIED SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF THE FOREGOING LETTER WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:
"1) COMPLETE DUTY OFFICE ROSTERS DESIGNATING NAMES AND DATES
DUTY WAS TO BE SERVED AND THE DUTY OFFICER LOGS REFLECTING
ACTUAL DUTY SERVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL BY DATES AND HOURS
FROM JULY 1, 1958 THROUGH JULY 31, 1961.
"2) DUTY OFFICER LOGS SHOWING ACTUAL DATES DUTY WAS PERFORMED
FROM JULY 1, 1958 THROUGH JULY 31, 1961.
"3) PARTIAL COMBINATIONS OF ITEMS 1) AND 2) ABOVE BUT NOT
COVERING THE FULL PERIOD.
"4) DUTY OFFICER ROSTERS AND NO DUTY OFFICER LOGS.
"5) NO RECORDS WHATSOEVER EXCEPT THOSE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN
MAINTAINED BY INDIVIDUALS. THESE CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED
BY COMPARISON WITH OFFICIAL RECORDS.
"6) NO OFFICIAL RECORDS AND NO RECORDS MAINTAINED BY INDIVIDUALS.'
THE LETTER ALSO POINTS OUT THAT A MEETING OF REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR TWO OFFICES CONCERNING THE MATTER COULD PROVE FRUITFUL AND MADE A REQUEST THEREFOR. THE MEETING WAS HELD IN MR. MCINTYRE'S OFFICE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1965, AND THE MATTER WAS FULLY DISCUSSED.
BASED UPON THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 1, 2 AND 3, SET OUT ABOVE, AND THE DISCUSSIONS THEREON IN THE RECENT MEETING, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN MANY OF THOSE CLAIMS THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SO THAT THEY CAN BE ADMINISTRATIVELY DISPOSED OF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RAPP AND HAWKINS CASES, CITED ABOVE. WITH RESPECT TO THOSE CASES ADMINISTRATIVELY CONSIDERED QUESTIONABLE OR DOUBTFUL WHICH GENERALLY WOULD BE COVERED BY PARAGRAPHS NUMBERED 4, 5 AND 6, AND IN CERTAIN INSTANCES UNDER PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE APRIL 2 LETTER, WE SUGGEST THAT AS SUCH MATTERS ARISE THEY BE PRESENTED BY YOU FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES.