B-144559: Apr 13, 1964

YOUR CLAIM FOR REGULAR OVERTIME COMPENSATION COVERING THE SAME PERIOD WAS PREVIOUSLY DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE. WHICH DISALLOWANCE WAS SUSTAINED BY OUR DECISIONS OF FEBRUARY 1. THAT PROVISION IS NOT SELF-EXECUTING. SINCE YOU DID NOT OCCUPY A POSITION DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM THAT WAS DETERMINED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT AS MEETING THE STANDARDS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO PREMIUM PAY ON AN ANNUAL...

B-144559: Feb 01, 1961

EQUIPMENT ARE TRANSPORTED DOES NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE TRAVEL. BECAUSE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF TIME OUTSIDE OF REGULAR WORKING HOURS SPENT IN SUCH TRAVEL IS SUBSTANTIAL OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. ON WORKDAYS OUTSIDE OF NORMAL DUTY MAY NOT HAVE SUCH TRAVEL REGARDED AS ARDUOUS WITHIN THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION LAW. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF TRAVEL TIME IS SUBSTANTIAL OVER A PER...

B-144559: Apr 19, 1962

THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE CLAIM AND OUR REASON FOR DISALLOWING IT WERE FULLY RELATED TO YOU IN OUR DECISION OF FEBRUARY 1. WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT FURTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE CASE. IN THE CURTIS AND HANTON CASE THE JUDGMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON LAW BUT RATHER. THE SITUS IS IN CALIFORNIA AND THE EXPENSE O...