Skip to Highlights
Highlights

ALTHOUGH OTHER EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM YOU WORKED WERE PROMOTED FROM GS-3 TO GS-4 POSITIONS ON SEPTEMBER 28. YOU WERE NOT SO PROMOTED. YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU FAILED TO BE PROMOTED BECAUSE YOU WERE ON LEAVE AT THE TIME THOSE PROMOTIONS BECAME EFFECTIVE. YOU ALSO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED FROM GS-4 TO A GS-5 SUPERVISING POSITION ON MARCH 28. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO A GS-4 POSITION AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO A GS-5 POSITION IS NOT A MATTER WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. IS A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF YOUR EMPLOYING AGENCY. THAT YOU ACTUALLY SERVED UNDER AN APPOINTMENT TO A GS-3 POSITION DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND HAVE BEEN PAID THE COMPENSATION ATTACHED TO THAT GRADE.

View Decision

B-149552, AUG. 10, 1962

TO MRS. FRANCES E. MACON:

ON JULY 10, 1962, YOU REQUESTED REVIEW OF OUR OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 22, 1962, WHICH DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FROM SEPTEMBER 28, 1952, TO THE PRESENT AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL WEAPONS PLANT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

YOU SAY THAT, ALTHOUGH OTHER EMPLOYEES WITH WHOM YOU WORKED WERE PROMOTED FROM GS-3 TO GS-4 POSITIONS ON SEPTEMBER 28, 1952, YOU WERE NOT SO PROMOTED. YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU FAILED TO BE PROMOTED BECAUSE YOU WERE ON LEAVE AT THE TIME THOSE PROMOTIONS BECAME EFFECTIVE. YOU ALSO SAY THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED FROM GS-4 TO A GS-5 SUPERVISING POSITION ON MARCH 28, 1954, SINCE YOU HAD BEEN IN TRAINING FOR THAT POSITION SINCE 1949.

THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO A GS-4 POSITION AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO A GS-5 POSITION IS NOT A MATTER WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION, BUT IS A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF YOUR EMPLOYING AGENCY. A REPORT FROM THE NAVAL WEAPONS PLANT INDICATES THAT YOU NEVER RECEIVED AN APPOINTMENT TO GRADES GS-4 OR GS-5, BUT THAT YOU ACTUALLY SERVED UNDER AN APPOINTMENT TO A GS-3 POSITION DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION AND HAVE BEEN PAID THE COMPENSATION ATTACHED TO THAT GRADE. EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED ONLY TO THE COMPENSATION OF THE POSITION TO WHICH HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED AND PROMOTIONS MAY NOT BE MADE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY.

THEREFORE, SINCE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN TO APPOINT YOU TO A HIGHER GRADE YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FROM 1952 UNTIL THE PRESENT ON THE BASIS OF PROMOTIONS WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED. OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 22, 1962, DISALLOWING YOUR CLAIM WAS CORRECT AND MUST BE SUSTAINED.

GAO Contacts