Skip to Highlights
Highlights

AS YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGREES WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE EMPLOYED LOCALLY IN TUNIS AS A FOREIGN SERVICE CLERK FOR SERVICE IN ANY CONSULATE IN NORTH AFRICA. YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT YOU NOW ARE BASING YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM UPON AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS REPORTED THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY EVIDENCE OF A WRITTEN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND HAVE MADE THEIR REPORT TO US ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NO SUCH CONTRACT EXISTS. 792.65 IS ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR COMPENSATION WAS NOT ADJUSTED TO REFLECT LOSSES RESULTING FROM CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS AND THE FURTHER FACT. THAT YOU WERE NOT PROMOTED FROM $600 TO $900 PER ANNUM SALARY ON A DATE ON WHICH YOU ALLEGE SUCH PROMOTION WAS PROMISED.

View Decision

B-133776, JAN. 2, 1958

TO MR. YAROSLAV L. TIAJOLOFF:

ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1957, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF THAT PART OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT DATED JULY 25, 1957, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR AN ADDITIONAL SUM OF $2,000 FOR LOSSES DUE TO CURRENCY EXCHANGE WHILE INTERNED BY GERMAN AUTHORITIES AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. YOU ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER TO US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN WHICH YOU INCREASED YOUR ORIGINAL CLAIM OF $2,000 TO $15,792.65. AS YOU HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVISED, THE DELAY IN ANSWERING YOUR LETTER RESULTED FROM YOUR INCREASED CLAIM WHICH MADE IT NECESSARY FOR US TO REQUEST AN ADDITIONAL REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AGREES WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU WERE EMPLOYED LOCALLY IN TUNIS AS A FOREIGN SERVICE CLERK FOR SERVICE IN ANY CONSULATE IN NORTH AFRICA. HOWEVER, YOUR LETTER INDICATES THAT YOU NOW ARE BASING YOUR REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF YOUR CLAIM UPON AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS REPORTED THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY EVIDENCE OF A WRITTEN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND HAVE MADE THEIR REPORT TO US ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT NO SUCH CONTRACT EXISTS. YOUR PRESENT CLAIM OF $15,792.65 IS ON THE BASIS THAT YOUR COMPENSATION WAS NOT ADJUSTED TO REFLECT LOSSES RESULTING FROM CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS AND THE FURTHER FACT, WITHIN YOUR COMPUTATION, THAT YOU WERE NOT PROMOTED FROM $600 TO $900 PER ANNUM SALARY ON A DATE ON WHICH YOU ALLEGE SUCH PROMOTION WAS PROMISED. YOU ALSO ALLEGE THAT YOUR TOTAL COMPENSATION, COMPUTED BY YOU AS $4,144.10, SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUADRUPLED BECAUSE OF AN ALLEGED 400 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE COST OF LIVING INDEX IN TUNISIA.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT A PERSONAL ACTION DATED OCTOBER 2, 1942, MADE PERMANENT AT $600 PER ANNUM YOUR EARLIER TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT DATED APRIL 1, 1942, AT THE SAME RATE OF PAY. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE ANY REGULATION OR AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMED ENTITLEMENT TO PROMOTION WITHIN A STIPULATED PERIOD AFTER YOUR ORIGINAL AND TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT. ADDITIONALLY, OUR OFFICE IS NOT AWARE OF ANY STATUTORY RIGHT TO THE PROMOTION AT THE TIME YOU ALLEGE THE PROMOTION WAS PROMISED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH WE MAY RECOGNIZE YOUR PROMOTION PRIOR TO APRIL 16, 1944, WHEN, IN FACT, YOU WERE PROMOTED TO $900 PER ANNUM. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO REPORTED THAT IT HAD NEITHER THE OBLIGATION NOR THE AUTHORITY TO INSURE AGAINST LOSSES FROM CURRENCY FLUCTUATION IN YOUR CASE BEYOND THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE FRANC TO THE DOLLAR IN A RATIO OF NOT LESS THAN 25.51 TO 1 THROUGHOUT THE FRANC AREA. THIS DUTY WAS ACQUITTED FULLY BY THE DEPARTMENT AS INDICATED BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT THAT YOUR ALLOTMENT OF TOTAL SALARY TO YOUR MOTHER WAS PAID AT THE RATE OF 49 FRANCS TO THE DOLLAR. ALSO, THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM FOR PAYMENT OF AN ALLEGED INCREASE OF 400 PERCENT IN THE COST OF LIVING INDEX DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM.

THE ACTION BY OUR OFFICE UPON CLAIMS MUST NECESSARILY BE BASED UPON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO US BY CLAIMANTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CONCERNED. UPON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, YOUR UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS ARE INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE FINDINGS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE IN YOUR CASE.

THEREFORE, OUR SETTLEMENT OF JULY 25, 1957, WAS CORRECT AND YOUR CLAIM FOR THE ADDITIONAL SUM IS ALSO DISALLOWED UPON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD NOW BEFORE OUR OFFICE.

GAO Contacts