B-146126, JUN. 27, 1961
Highlights
REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATED WHILE YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 12. YOU CONTEND THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THOSE WE DO HAVE ARE VERY MUCH DISTORTED AND TWISTED. WHEN A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DISCLOSED YOU WERE PHYSICALLY DISQUALIFIED YOU SHOULD THEN HAVE BEEN PLACED ON DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND ALLOWED TO USE YOUR ACCUMULATED SICK LEAVE. IN OUR SETTLEMENT WE ADVISED YOU THAT IT HAD BEEN REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THAT YOU WERE INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHTS. THAT SINCE YOU INSISTED ON CONTINUING IN A DUTY STATUS YOU WERE DETAILED TO A POSITION WHICH REQUIRED LITTLE OR NO STRENUOUS EFFORT.
B-146126, JUN. 27, 1961
TO MR. S. R. OSBORNE:
YOUR LETTER OF MAY 29, 1961, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF SICK LEAVE ACCUMULATED WHILE YOU WERE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 12, 1961. IN EFFECT, YOU CONTEND THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THOSE WE DO HAVE ARE VERY MUCH DISTORTED AND TWISTED.
IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIM YOU ADVANCED AS YOUR CONCLUSION THAT ON JANUARY 22, 1960, WHEN A PHYSICAL EXAMINATION DISCLOSED YOU WERE PHYSICALLY DISQUALIFIED YOU SHOULD THEN HAVE BEEN PLACED ON DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND ALLOWED TO USE YOUR ACCUMULATED SICK LEAVE. IN OUR SETTLEMENT WE ADVISED YOU THAT IT HAD BEEN REPORTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE THAT YOU WERE INFORMED OF YOUR RIGHTS, BENEFITS, AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT AFTER YOUR BEING PHYSICALLY DISQUALIFIED ON JANUARY 22, 1960; THAT SINCE YOU INSISTED ON CONTINUING IN A DUTY STATUS YOU WERE DETAILED TO A POSITION WHICH REQUIRED LITTLE OR NO STRENUOUS EFFORT; THAT YOU NOT ONLY INSISTED IN REMAINING ON DUTY BUT DECLINED TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT UNTIL MAY 12, 1960; AND THAT ON MAY 16, 1960, YOU ENTERED A SICK LEAVE STATUS AND ON THE SAME DAY YOU RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED REDUCTION IN FORCE BECAUSE OF THE INACTIVATION OF THE ORDNANCE DEPOT MAINTENANCE DIVISION. YOU NOW CONTEND THAT INSTEAD YOU WERE PLACED ON A 90-DAY DETAIL,"SAME JOB--- SAME DUTIES-- SAME JOB NUMBER IN LIEU OF PLACING (YOU) IN A LIGHT DUTY JOB.' ALSO, YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE NOT CONSIDERED FOR JOBS AVAILABLE FOR WHICH YOU WERE QUALIFIED AND ABLE TO PERFORM.
IT IS THE ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS THEREOF. YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED SUCH EVIDENCE.
YOU POINT OUT THAT YOU WERE RETIRED FOR DISABILITY EFFECTIVE JUNE 30, 1960. THUS, YOUR RETIREMENT WAS NOT EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE 30-DAY NOTICE PERIOD IN THE REDUCTION IN FORCE ACTION. UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LEAVE REGULATIONS, EVEN THOUGH AN APPLICATION FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT MAY BE PENDING AT THE TIME AN EMPLOYEE IS REACHED FOR REDUCTION IN FORCE, SICK LEAVE TERMINATES AT THE END OF THE 30-DAY NOTICE PERIOD.
THEREFORE, UPON THE EXISTING RECORD, OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MAY 12, 1961, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM MUST BE AND IS SUSTAINED.