https://www.gao.gov/products/444760

B-149600: Aug 12, 1966

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 14. IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WHEREIN WE SAY THAT "MANNING SCALE NO. 7 WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED. THAT MANNING SCALE NO. 5 REMAINED IN EFFECT UNTIL ISSUANCE OF NO. 8" AND SAY THAT IF THIS IS TRUE THEN OVERSIGHT OR CLERICAL ERROR WAS RESPONSIBLE. THE APPROVAL OF A MANNING SCALE BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF TRANSPORTATION DID NOT AUTOMATI...

https://www.gao.gov/products/413281

B-149600: Aug 14, 1962

WAS NOT "BORNE OUT" AS EVIDENCED BY YOUR COPY OF THE APPROVED MANNING SCALE FOR THE FS 392 EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 13. YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE HIGHER WAGE SCALES SPECIFIED IN MANNING SCALE NO. 7. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HAS REPORTED TO OUR OFFICE THAT MANNING SCALE NO. 7 WAS NOT IMPLEMENTED. THAT NO. 5 AND PAGE 2 OF THE REVISION OF MARINE WAGE SCALES AND DESIGNATIONS WERE USED IN DETERMINING THAT Y...

https://www.gao.gov/products/411314

B-149600: Nov 21, 1966

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE WERE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 14. ARE OF RECORD AND WERE FULLY CONSIDERED BY OUR OFFICE IN RENDERING OUR DECISIONS OF AUGUST 14. THAT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF WAS TO BE MADE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE FAR EAST COMMAND BY THE ISSUANCE OF FORMS NO. 50. THERE IS NO RECORD OF A FORM NO. 50 HAVING ISSUED DESIGNATING YOU...