Skip to Highlights
Highlights

IN YOUR REDUCTION IN FORCE REASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER POSITION YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT PLACED IN THE GRADE AND DUTIES OF A CERTAIN POSITION WHICH THE AGENCY PERSONNEL OFFICE ERRONEOUSLY HAD INDICATED WAS AVAILABLE. WHICH UPON INVESTIGATION WAS FOUND NOT TO EXIST IN THE OFFICE FACILITY TO WHICH YOU WERE REASSIGNED UNDER SUCH REORGANIZATION. WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY STATUTE OR RULES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. UNDER WHICH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS AUTHORIZED TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR PERFORMING DUTIES IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF THE PARTICULAR POSITION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS APPOINTED. WHICH HELD (QUOTING THE HEAD NOTE): "* * * ONE WHO HOLDS OFFICE IS ENTITLED TO NO MORE THAN THE SALARY OF THE OFFICE TO WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED.

View Decision

B-144513, DEC. 13, 1960

TO MR. CONDIE N. NATHEWS:

YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 4, 1960, WITH ENCLOSURE, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR CLAIMS DIVISION SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 14, 1960, WHICH, FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, BROOKLEY AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA, DURING THE PERIOD DECEMBER 29, 1946, TO JUNE 24, 1951.

YOU DISAGREE WITH THE SETTLEMENT BECAUSE, IN YOUR REDUCTION IN FORCE REASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER POSITION YOU SAY YOU WERE NOT PLACED IN THE GRADE AND DUTIES OF A CERTAIN POSITION WHICH THE AGENCY PERSONNEL OFFICE ERRONEOUSLY HAD INDICATED WAS AVAILABLE, BUT WHICH UPON INVESTIGATION WAS FOUND NOT TO EXIST IN THE OFFICE FACILITY TO WHICH YOU WERE REASSIGNED UNDER SUCH REORGANIZATION.

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY STATUTE OR RULES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, IN EFFECT AT THE TIME, UNDER WHICH ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION IS AUTHORIZED TO AN EMPLOYEE FOR PERFORMING DUTIES IN ADDITION TO THOSE OF THE PARTICULAR POSITION TO WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS APPOINTED. YOU SAY YOUR SUPERIOR "TOLD ME TO GO AHEAD IF I WOULD AS HE HAD TO GET THIS TYPE WORK ON THE GO AND THAT HE AND HIGHER AUTHORITY WOULD TAKE IT UP WITH PERSONNEL.' SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE ALONE DOES NOT CREATE AN OBLIGATION REQUIRING RETROACTIVE PAYMENT, AS YOU CLAIM. MOREOVER, WE DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO COLEMAN V. UNITED STATES, 100 CT.CL. 41, WHICH HELD (QUOTING THE HEAD NOTE):

"* * * ONE WHO HOLDS OFFICE IS ENTITLED TO NO MORE THAN THE SALARY OF THE OFFICE TO WHICH HE WAS APPOINTED, WHETHER OR NOT HE PERFORMS THE DUTIES OF AN OFFICE OF HIGHER GRADE. * * *"

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A SALARY CHANGE RESULTING SOLELY FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS THE DATE THE ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, OR A SUBSEQUENT DATE FIXED BY HIM. SEE THE DECISIONS CITED IN THE SETTLEMENT LETTER OF OCTOBER 14, 1960, TO YOU. ALSO, IN THAT LETTER YOU WERE CORRECTLY ADVISED THAT ASSIGNMENT UNDER THE REDUCTION IN FORCE, AND ANY AGENCY ALLOCATIONS OR REASSIGNMENTS THEREAFTER ARE NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, AS SUCH MATTERS COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

AS TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 4, 1960, WE ENCLOSE HEREWITH A COPY OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 9, 1940, AND DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST CLAUSE OF SECTION 2 OF THAT ACT. FURTHER, COMMENT HERE ON THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER WOULD SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE--- OTHER THAN TO POINT OUT THAT NO AMOUNT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE IN ANY EVENT FOR YOUR PERIOD OF SERVICE PRIOR TO MARCH 12, 1948, UNDER YOUR CLAIM RECEIVED HERE MARCH 12, 1958.

THEREFORE, WE FIND OUR SETTLEMENT OF OCTOBER 14, 1960, TO BE CORRECT AND IT HEREBY IS SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts