Skip to Highlights
Highlights

WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED YOUR LETTERS OF MARCH 19 AND APRIL 9. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION FOR WHICH YOU WORKED WAS COVERED BY DIVISION ORDER NO. 58-13 DATED MAY 9. THE REPORT ALSO STATES THAT THE OFFICIAL TIME AND ATTENDANCE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE THAT ANY OVERTIME WAS WORKED BY YOU AND THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY APPROVAL BY THE DIVISION ENGINEER FOR YOU TO WORK OVERTIME. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF YOUR TIME AND ATTENDANCE REPORTS. PAY RECORDS WHICH VERIFY THE REPORT MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND SHOW YOU WERE PAID FOR 80 HOURS OF REGULAR TIME EACH PAY PERIOD DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HOLIDAY. WHILE YOU HAVE FURNISHED US A TYPEWRITTEN LIST OF OVERTIME HOURS WHICH YOU SAY IS FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL LOG BOOK AND WHICH INDICATES YOU PERFORMED 266 HOURS OF OVERTIME SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION.

View Decision

B-142263, APR. 27, 1960

TO MR. VICTOR R. FRASCA:

ON MARCH 6, 1960, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR SETTLEMENT CERTIFICATE Z- 1816872 DATED MARCH 1, 1960, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR AN UNSTATED AMOUNT ALLEGED TO BE DUE FOR 266 HOURS OF COMPENSATORY TIME FOR OVERTIME SERVICES RENDERED AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, LIMESTONE FIELD OFFICE, PORTLAND AREA, DURING THE PERIOD APRIL 13 TO JULY 27, 1959. WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED YOUR LETTERS OF MARCH 19 AND APRIL 9, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURES.

A REPORT FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ON YOUR CLAIM STATES THAT THE OVERTIME AND COMPENSATORY TIME POLICY OF THE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION FOR WHICH YOU WORKED WAS COVERED BY DIVISION ORDER NO. 58-13 DATED MAY 9, 1958. THE REPORT SAYS THE ORDER PROVIDES THAT PAID OVERTIME MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIVISION ENGINEER ON ENG FORM 1663, CONTROL OF OVERTIME, AND THAT COMPENSATORY TIME MUST BE REQUESTED AND APPROVED IN THE SAME MANNER AS AUTHORIZED PAID OVERTIME. THE REPORT ALSO STATES THAT THE OFFICIAL TIME AND ATTENDANCE REPORTS DO NOT INDICATE THAT ANY OVERTIME WAS WORKED BY YOU AND THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY APPROVAL BY THE DIVISION ENGINEER FOR YOU TO WORK OVERTIME.

WE HAVE EXAMINED THE PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF YOUR TIME AND ATTENDANCE REPORTS, 1959 LEAVE RECORD, AND PAY RECORDS WHICH VERIFY THE REPORT MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY AND SHOW YOU WERE PAID FOR 80 HOURS OF REGULAR TIME EACH PAY PERIOD DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HOLIDAY, MAY 30, 1959, FOR WHICH YOU RECEIVED HOLIDAY PAY FOR THE EIGHT HOURS WORKED ON THAT DAY. WHILE YOU HAVE FURNISHED US A TYPEWRITTEN LIST OF OVERTIME HOURS WHICH YOU SAY IS FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL LOG BOOK AND WHICH INDICATES YOU PERFORMED 266 HOURS OF OVERTIME SERVICE DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION, NO OFFICIAL RECORD HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO US OF ANY OVERTIME HAVING BEEN ORDERED, APPROVED, OR PERFORMED BY YOU DURING SUCH PERIOD. ALSO, WHILE IT MAY BE THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY PERFORMED SERVICES BEYOND YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED HOURS OF WORK, OUR OFFICE IS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO PAY YOU FOR SUCH SERVICES IN THE ABSENCE OF OFFICIAL RECORDS TO SHOW THE SERVICES WERE ORDERED OR APPROVED BY THE PROPER ARMY ENGINEER OFFICIALS AND OFFICIAL RECORDS TO SHOW THAT YOU ACTUALLY PERFORMED SUCH SERVICES. IT IS THE ESTABLISHED RULE OF OUR OFFICE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON DISPUTED QUESTIONS OF FACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION OF THE CORRECTNESS THEREOF. WE MAY NOT ACCEPT THE TYPEWRITTEN LIST PRESENTED BY YOU AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION. THEREFORE, UPON THE BASIS OF THE PRESENT RECORD, THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM BY OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF MARCH 1, 1960, WAS CORRECT AND IS SUSTAINED.

IN YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 9, 1960, YOU ASK WHETHER YOU MAY BE PAID FOR EIGHT DAYS THAT YOU LOST BETWEEN THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF YOUR REDUCTION IN FORCE NOTICE AND THE DATE YOU RETURNED TO YOUR POSITION AFTER BEING INFORMED THAT THE NOTICE HAD BEEN CANCELED. YOU SAY THAT YOUR REDUCTION IN FORCE NOTICE WAS EFFECTIVE ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, AND THAT YOU RETURNED TO YOUR HOME WITHOUT KNOWING THAT THE NOTICE HAD BEEN CANCELED. YOU CALLED AT THE END OF THE WEEK CONCERNING YOUR FINAL CHECK AND YOU WERE INFORMED THAT YOUR REDUCTION IN FORCE NOTICE HAD BEEN CANCELED AND THAT YOU SHOULD BE AT WORK. YOU BELIEVE YOU SHOULD BE PAID FOR THE TIME YOU LOST BECAUSE OF THE REDUCTION IN FORCE NOTICE AND THE FAILURE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE TO NOTIFY YOU OF ITS CANCELLATION BEFORE YOU DEPARTED FOR YOUR HOME.

THERE IS NO STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU MAY BE PAID FOR ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH YOU ACTUALLY DID NOT PERFORM SERVICES OR DURING WHICH YOU WERE NOT ON AUTHORIZED LEAVE WITH PAY. THEREFORE, FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION MAY NOT BE GIVEN TO YOUR CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE EIGHT DAYS WORK YOU LOST UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES STATED ABOVE.

GAO Contacts