B-127667, MAY 9, 1956
Highlights
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR RECENT LETTER RELATIVE TO THE CLAIM OF MR. THE CLAIM IS FOR BACK PAY FOR THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 7. IT APPEARS THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM ORIGINALLY WAS DENIED BY THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF OUR RULING IN 29 COMP. GEN. 209 THAT PROCEDURAL ERRORS IN EFFECTING REMOVALS WERE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS COMING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10. IT WAS RULED THAT SUCH SEPARATIONS WOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING WITHIN THE TERMS "UNJUSTIFIED" OR "UNWARRANTED" AS USED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THAT STATUTE. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER IS WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DECISION (34 COMP. IN THAT REGARD YOUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE ENCLOSED COPY OF OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 9.
B-127667, MAY 9, 1956
TO MR. MAURICE J. TAGGART, ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR RECENT LETTER RELATIVE TO THE CLAIM OF MR. MORRIS HOLTZ, 12 WESTBOURNE ROAD, NEWTON CENTRE, MASSACHUSETTS, FOR BACK PAY COVERING A PERIOD OF ALLEGED IMPROPER SUSPENSION AND SEPARATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
THE CLAIM IS FOR BACK PAY FOR THE PERIOD FROM JUNE 7, 1954, TO APRIL 15, 1955. IT APPEARS THAT THE EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM ORIGINALLY WAS DENIED BY THE SERVICE BECAUSE OF OUR RULING IN 29 COMP. GEN. 209 THAT PROCEDURAL ERRORS IN EFFECTING REMOVALS WERE NOT TO BE REGARDED AS COMING WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1948, 62 STAT. 354. HOWEVER, IN 34 COMP. GEN. 568, IT WAS RULED THAT SUCH SEPARATIONS WOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING WITHIN THE TERMS "UNJUSTIFIED" OR "UNWARRANTED" AS USED IN THE PROVISIONS OF THAT STATUTE.
IN SUBSTANCE, THE QUESTION PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER IS WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DECISION (34 COMP. GEN. 568) MAY BE RETROACTIVELY APPLIED. IN THAT REGARD YOUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE ENCLOSED COPY OF OUR DECISION OF NOVEMBER 9, 1955, B-125161, TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, PERTAINING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION UNDER ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES.
IN THE LIGHT OF THE REFERRED-TO DECISION IT WOULD APPEAR THAT MR. HOLTZ- CLAIM, IF OTHERWISE PROPER, MAY BE SETTLED WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY BY YOUR OFFICE.
HOWEVER, SHOULD ANY QUESTION ARISE IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE SITUATIONS CONSIDERED IN B-125161 AND THAT OF MR. HOLTZ, A REQUEST FOR A DECISION BY THE AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICER CONCERNED, ACCOMPANIED BY A VOUCHER AND SUPPORTING PAPERS, WILL RECEIVE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.