B-150286, DEC. 17, 1962

B-150286, DEC. 17, 1962

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:

ON NOVEMBER 13, 1962, THE UNDER SECRETARY REQUESTED OUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN ERRONEOUS PROMOTION ACTIONS (REGARDINGS) WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED SHOULD BE REGARDED AS (1) "AN EQUIVALENT INCREASE" IN SALARY FOR WITHIN-GRADE INCREASE PURPOSES AND (2) AN INTERRUPTION OF THE CONTINUITY OF THE 3-YEAR PERIOD REQUIRED FOR LONGEVITY INCREASE UNDER THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED, IN EFFECT PRIOR TO THE CLASSIFICATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1962, PUBLIC LAW 87- 793.

THE PERTINENT FACTS ARE STATED IN THE UNDER SECRETARY'S LETTER AS FOLLOWS:

"CASE 1. ON 9 JULY 1961 AN EMPLOYEE SERVING IN STEP 3 OF GRADE GS 13 ($11,155 PER ANNUM) WAS PROMOTED TO STEP 1 OF GRADE GS-14 ($12,210 PER ANNUM) BASED ON REEVALUATION OF HIS POSITION BY AN OFFICIAL TO WHOM EVALUATION AUTHORITY HAD BEEN DELEGATED. UPON SUBSEQUENT REVIEW BY A HIGHER ECHELON, THIS EVALUATION WAS DETERMINED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS DIRECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, ON 1 OCTOBER 1961 CHANGE TO LOWER GRADE ACTION WAS EFFECTED RETURNING THE EMPLOYEE TO STEP 3 OF GRADE GS-13 ($11,155 PER ANNUM).

"CASE 2. ON 28 MAY 1961 AN EMPLOYEE SERVING IN THE TOP SCHEDULED STEP OF GRADE GS-12 ($10,255 PER ANNUM) SINCE 22 MARCH 1959 WAS PROMOTED TO STEP 1 OF GRADE GS-13 ($10,365 PER ANNUM) BASED ON REEVALUATION OF HIS POSITION BY AN OFFICIAL TO WHOM EVALUATION AUTHORITY HAD BEEN DELEGATED. UPON SUBSEQUENT REVIEW BY A HIGHER ECHELON, THIS EVALUATION WAS DETERMINED TO BE ERRONEOUS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS DIRECTED. CONSEQUENTLY, ON 1 OCTOBER 1961 CHANGE TO LOWER GRADE ACTION WAS EFFECTED RETURNING THE EMPLOYEE TO THE TOP SCHEDULED STEP OF GRADE GS-12 ($10,255 PER ANNUM). COMPLETED THE 10-YEAR AGGREGATE PERIOD FOR LONGEVITY STEP INCREASE ON 16 SEPTEMBER 1961.'

FROM THE FACTS STATED IT APPEARS THAT THERE WERE NO CHANGES IN THE REQUIREMENTS, DUTIES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE POSITIONS INVOLVED AND THAT THE DETERMINATION OF ERROR WAS BASED UPON A REVIEW OF THE SAME JOB DESCRIPTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE OFFICIAL WHO HAD REEVALUATED THE POSITIONS A FEW MONTHS EARLIER. THEREFORE, THE PROMOTIONS OF THE INCUMBENTS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE REALLOCATION OF THEIR POSITIONS ARE NOT VIEWED AS HAVING BEEN TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS AS WERE THOSE CONSIDERED IN 30 COMP. GEN. 82 AND 31 COMP. GEN. 525, CITED IN THE UNDER SECRETARY'S LETTER. IN THOSE CASES THE PROMOTIONS WERE KNOWN TO BE TEMPORARY AT THE TIME AND REQUIRED DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF A HIGHER CLASSIFICATION THAN THOSE OF THE POSITIONS FROM WHICH THE INCUMBENTS WERE SO PROMOTED.

THEREFORE, WE AGREE THAT HERE THERE WAS INVOLVED ONLY THE TIMELY CORRECTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS AND IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN DID NOT RESULT IN AN "EQUIVALENT INCREASE" FOR THE INCUMBENT IN CASE 1, NOR DID SUCH ACTION HAVE THE EFFECT OF INTERRUPTING THE CONTINUITY OF THE 3-YEAR LONGEVITY PERIOD OF THE EMPLOYEE IN CASE 2. SEE 36 COMP. GEN. 73; 32 ID. 135.