Claim for Hazardous Duty Differential
B-197978: Jun 5, 1980
- Full Report:
An Army employee claimed hazardous duty differential for exposure to allegedly toxic compounds in tobacco smoke. The Army disallowed the claim because the exposure to the hazard was not irregular or intermittent as required by the statute. GAO has held that the authority to determine whether a particular situation warrants payment of a hazardous duty differential is vested in the employing agency. It will not substitute its judgment for that of the agency officials unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the agency's decision was wrong or that it was arbitrary and capricious. Since the record did not indicate that the Army was either wrong or arbitrary and capricious, GAO sustained the prior disallowance.