B-149233, JUL. 18, 1962
Highlights
ATTACHED TO THAT LETTER WAS A COPY OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FOR SUCH OVERTIME COMPENSATION DATED OCTOBER 30. SINCE YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 24. IS TREATED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THAT SETTLEMENT IN YOUR CASE. WE WERE INFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION THAT PERSONS ACTING AS DUTY OFFICERS AT THEIR REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PERFORM DUTY OFFICER SERVICE BUT DID SO ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS KNOWING THAT TIME SO SPENT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED OVERTIME FOR COMPENSATION PURPOSES. OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR YOUR SERVICE AS DUTY OFFICER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 201 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945.
B-149233, JUL. 18, 1962
TO MR. BRUCE A BELL:
WE REFER TO THE LETTER OF APRIL 27, 1962, IN WHICH YOU AND SIX OTHER FORMER EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION CLAIM OVERTIME COMPENSATION BY REASON OF DUTY OFFICER SERVICE YOU PERFORMED IN ADDITION TO YOUR REGULAR DUTY FOR THAT AGENCY BETWEEN 1958 AND 1960. ATTACHED TO THAT LETTER WAS A COPY OF YOUR INDIVIDUAL CLAIM FOR SUCH OVERTIME COMPENSATION DATED OCTOBER 30, 1961. SINCE YOUR CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 24, 1962, THE LETTER OF APRIL 27, IS TREATED AS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THAT SETTLEMENT IN YOUR CASE.
WE WERE INFORMED BY THE OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION THAT PERSONS ACTING AS DUTY OFFICERS AT THEIR REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PERFORM DUTY OFFICER SERVICE BUT DID SO ON A VOLUNTARY BASIS KNOWING THAT TIME SO SPENT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED OVERTIME FOR COMPENSATION PURPOSES. MOREOVER, OVERTIME COMPENSATION FOR YOUR SERVICE AS DUTY OFFICER WAS NOT AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 201 OF THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES PAY ACT OF 1945, APPROVED JUNE 30, 1945, CH. 212, 59 STAT. 296, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 203 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1954, CH. 1208, 68 STAT. 1109, 5 U.S.C. 911. SEE POST V. UNITED STATES, 121 CT.CL. 94 (1951); TABBUTT V. UNITED STATES, 121 CT.CL. 495 (1952); GAINES V. UNITED STATES, 132 CT.CL. 408, 412, 131 F.SUPP. 925 (1955). ALSO, WE REFER YOU TO THE ACTION TAKEN IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIMANT "SERNA" (ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN BOCA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, CT.CL.NO. 489-57, DECIDED JUNE 8, 1960) WHEREIN OVERTIME COMPENSATION WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF A MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING BY MANAGEMENT AND THE EMPLOYEE THAT HIS SERVICES WERE VOLUNTARY.
OUR OFFICE MUST ACCEPT THE FACTS PRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AGENCY AS CONTROLLING WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE STATEMENTS OF A CLAIMANT AND THOSE OF SUCH AGENCY. THEREFORE, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE PERFORMED AS A DUTY OFFICER AND OUR SETTLEMENT OF JANUARY 24, 1962, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM, IS SUSTAINED.