B-136504, JUL. 25, 1958

B-136504, JUL. 25, 1958

TO MR. FLOYD E. DOTSON:

YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 16, 1958, REQUESTS OUR DECISION WHETHER THE ENCLOSED VOUCHER IN FAVOR OF MISS THELMA S. HEINEMAN MAY BE CERTIFIED FOR PAYMENT. THE VOUCHER IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $134.51 REPRESENTS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR ANNUAL LEAVE IF MAY 30, 1958, IS USED AS THE DATE OF HER SEPARATION RATHER THAN MAY 2, 1958, THE SEPARATION DATE USED ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR FINAL SALARY PAYMENT PURPOSES AND FOR THE LUMP-SUM PAYMENT FOR ANNUAL LEAVE.

THE FACTS REPORTED BY YOU ARE THAT SOMETIME PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1958, MISS HEINEMAN ADVISED HER SUPERVISOR THAT SHE PLANNED TO BE MARRIED AND INTENDED TO RESIGN. ON APRIL 30, SHE SUBMITTED HER RESIGNATION EFFECTIVE MAY 30, 1958, AND ALSO REQUESTED ANNUAL LEAVE FOR THE MONTH OF MAY. SHE WAS ADVISED INFORMALLY BY HER SUPERVISOR THAT THIS WOULD BE SATISFACTORY. AFTER FOUR HOURS ON MAY 1, MISS HEINEMAN ENTERED ON ANNUAL LEAVE AND DID NOT RETURN TO DUTY DURING THE MONTH OF MAY. HER RESIGNATION WAS FORWARDED TO THE BRANCH OF PERSONNEL OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, AND WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE ANNUAL LEAVE WHICH HAD BEEN GRANTED TO HER, THE SEPARATION WAS PROCESSED EFFECTIVE MAY 30. PRIOR TO THIS ACTION, HOWEVER, A LONGEVITY INCREASE WAS PROCESSED EFFECTIVE MAY 18. WHEN THESE ACTIONS TOGETHER WITH THE TIME REPORTS SHOWING ANNUAL LEAVE REACHED THE PAYROLL UNIT, THERE WAS SOME DOUBT REGARDING THE AMOUNT DUE FOR THE MONTH OF MAY OR FOR ACCUMULATED LEAVE. AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS MAY 1, THE LAST DAY OF ACTIVE DUTY, MISS HEINEMAN HAD ACCRUED 460 HOURS OF ANNUAL LEAVE BUT NONE OF THIS WAS EARNED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR. PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE UPON THE BASIS OF SALARY AND LEAVE DUE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON MAY 1, HER LAST DAY OF ACTIVE DUTY. YOUR DOUBT IN THE MATTER APPEARS TO ARISE FROM OUR DECISION 32 COMP. GEN. 111, WHICH HELD THAT THE RESIGNATION OF A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE MUST BE PROCESSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS TERMS AS TENDERED.

IN OUR DECISION B-134914, FEBRUARY 28, 1958, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ANSWER TO SECOND QUESTION, WE REFERRED TO 32 COMP. GEN. 111 AND APPLIED THE RULE STATED IN OUR DECISION 34 COMP. GEN. 61. IN THE LATTER DECISION WE REVIEWED THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH TERMINAL, ANNUAL OR VACATION LEAVE MAY BE GRANTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO AN EMPLOYEE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE, WHEN IT IS KNOWN IN ADVANCE THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS TO BE SEPARATED, AND WE HELD THAT THE AUTHORITY IS LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THE EXIGENCIES OF THE SERVICE REQUIRE SUCH ACTION. THE DECISION REITERATED THE GENERAL RULE STATED IN 24 COMP. GEN. 511 THAT AN EMPLOYEE MUST BE SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE AND PAID A LUMP SUM FOR THE ANNUAL LEAVE TO HIS CREDIT AS OF THE LAST DATE OF ACTIVE SERVICE. WE RECOGNIZED CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE IN 24 COMP. GEN. 511, BASED UPON STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND STATUTORY REGULATIONS. SEE 25 COMP. GEN. 82; 26 ID. 331; 31 ID. 581; AND 33 ID. 85.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE REPORTED FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE THAT THE EXIGENCIES OF THE SERVICE REQUIRED THE RETENTION OF THE EMPLOYEE IN AN ANNUAL LEAVE STATUS. THEREFORE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION SHOULD BE AMENDED TO SHOW THE EMPLOYEE'S SEPARATION ON MAY 1, 1958, HER LAST DAY OF ACTIVE DUTY. SINCE YOU SAY THE EMPLOYEE HAS BEEN PAID UPON THE BASIS OF THE SALARY AND LEAVE DUE ON HER LAST DAY OF ACTIVE DUTY (MAY 1, 1958), THE VOUCHER, RETURNED HEREWITH, MAY NOT BE ..END :