B-159542, JUL. 21, 1966
Highlights
WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF SEVEN HOURS COMPENSATION WHICH WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR PAY AS A RESULT OF YOUR BEING CHARGED ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE WHILE EMPLOYED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT YOU WERE CITED AS BEING ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE FOR FOUR HOURS ON OCTOBER 14 AND THREE HOURS ON OCTOBER 16. THAT YOUR SALARY WAS REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. YOUR GRIEVANCE WAS PROCESSED THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CPR E2.2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE EXTENDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR CASE. A FINAL DECISION ON YOUR GRIEVANCE WAS RENDERED BY THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL. THE SOLE QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THE SEVEN HOURS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED AS ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE.
B-159542, JUL. 21, 1966
TO MR. JOSEPH E. LIPINSKI:
WE REFER TO YOUR LETTER OF MAY 29, 1966, AND ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT DATED APRIL 29, 1966, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF SEVEN HOURS COMPENSATION WHICH WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DEDUCTED FROM YOUR PAY AS A RESULT OF YOUR BEING CHARGED ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE WHILE EMPLOYED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, PACIFIC.
THE RECORD DISCLOSES THAT YOU WERE CITED AS BEING ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE FOR FOUR HOURS ON OCTOBER 14 AND THREE HOURS ON OCTOBER 16, 1964, AND THAT YOUR SALARY WAS REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. YOU APPEALED THE ACTION TO YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONTENDING THAT THE CHARGE TO ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE AND CORRESPONDING PAY REDUCTION CONSTITUTED AN "ADVERSE ACTION.' HOWEVER, YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TREATED YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW AS A TYPE I GRIEVANCE UNDER SECTION 2 OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY CIVILIAN PERSONNEL REGULATION E2 RATHER THAN AS AN APPEAL FROM AN ADVERSE ACTION UNDER SECTION 5 OF CPR E2. YOUR GRIEVANCE WAS PROCESSED THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANNELS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CPR E2.2. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE EXTENDED AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
ON JULY 1, 1965, A FINAL DECISION ON YOUR GRIEVANCE WAS RENDERED BY THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. THAT DECISION SUSTAINED THE ACTION OF YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
YOU APPEALED TO THE SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION WHICH, BY DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 1965, HELD THAT THE ACTION OF YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADVERSE ACTION SUBJECT TO APPELLATE REVIEW BY THE COMMISSION. UPON FURTHER APPEAL, THE COMMISSION'S BOARD OF APPEALS AND REVIEW AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO REGION.
THE SOLE QUESTION FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THE SEVEN HOURS ADMINISTRATIVELY CHARGED AS ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE. THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE ACTION TAKEN BY YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CONSTITUTED AN "ADVERSE ACTION" HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUCH DECISION IS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THIS OFFICE.
WE HAVE RULED CONSISTENTLY THAT THE PLACING OF AN EMPLOYEE IN AN ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE STATUS IS A MATTER WITHIN ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION AND THAT IT IS LEGALLY PROPER FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO TAKE SUCH ACTION WHEN AN EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION ABSENTS HIMSELF FROM AN OFFICIAL DUTY STATUS. SEE 44 COMP. GEN. 274. WE FIND NO PROPER BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ACTED OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY IN PLACING YOU IN AN ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE STATUS. THEREFORE, OUR SETTLEMENT OF APRIL 29, 1966, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM IS SUSTAINED.