Skip to Highlights
Highlights

WAS FORWARDED TO US FOR CONSIDERATION AND REPLY CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ALLEGEDLY DUE YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE U.S. IS FOR THE SUM OF $5. REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALARY YOU RECEIVED AND THAT WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD YOU BEEN PROMOTED FROM GS-3 TO GS-4 ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1952 AND FROM GS-4 TO GS-5 ON 28 MARCH 1954. MACON'S CLAIM IS FOR DIFFERENCE IN PAY FROM GS-3 TO GS-4 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1952 UNTIL 1954 AT WHICH TIME SHE CLAIMS SALARY FOR GRADE GS-5. THREE EMPLOYEES WERE ADVANCED FROM PAYROLL CLERKS. MACON WAS CLASSIFIED AS A CLERK-TYPIST. GS-3 AND WAS NOT REASSIGNED AS A PAYROLL CLERK. IT IS NOTED THAT THE THREE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT PROMOTED AS A RESULT OF VACANCIES BUT DUE TO A RECLASSIFICATION ACTION.

View Decision

B-149552, NOV. 5, 1962

TO MRS. FRANCES E. MACON:

YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1962, WITH ENCLOSURE, ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WAS FORWARDED TO US FOR CONSIDERATION AND REPLY CONCERNING YOUR CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ALLEGEDLY DUE YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE U.S. NAVAL WEAPONS PLANT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOUR CLAIM DATED MARCH 16, 1962, IS FOR THE SUM OF $5,054.25 COVERING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 28, 1952, TO MAY 26, 1962, REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALARY YOU RECEIVED AND THAT WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD YOU BEEN PROMOTED FROM GS-3 TO GS-4 ON 28 SEPTEMBER 1952 AND FROM GS-4 TO GS-5 ON 28 MARCH 1954. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, IN ITS REPORT OF MAY 29, 1962, INFORMED US CONCERNING THE FACTS OF YOUR CASE, AS FOLLOWS:

"MRS. MACON'S CLAIM IS FOR DIFFERENCE IN PAY FROM GS-3 TO GS-4 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1952 UNTIL 1954 AT WHICH TIME SHE CLAIMS SALARY FOR GRADE GS-5. IN SEPTEMBER 1952, THREE EMPLOYEES WERE ADVANCED FROM PAYROLL CLERKS, GS-3 TO TIME, LEAVE AND PAYROLL CLERKS, GS-4. AT THAT TIME MRS. MACON WAS CLASSIFIED AS A CLERK-TYPIST, GS-3 AND WAS NOT REASSIGNED AS A PAYROLL CLERK, GS-3 UNTIL 27 MARCH 1953. IT IS NOTED THAT THE THREE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT PROMOTED AS A RESULT OF VACANCIES BUT DUE TO A RECLASSIFICATION ACTION. IN ADDITION, MRS. MACON HAD NOT APPLIED AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIODS MENTIONED TO FILL ANY VACANCIES WHICH WERE ADVERTISED.'

IN THE LIGHT OF THAT REPORT, OUR SETTLEMENT OF JUNE 22, 1962, DISALLOWED YOUR CLAIM BECAUSE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED ONLY TO THE SALARY OF THE POSITION TO WHICH HE IS APPOINTED. THE RECORD FOR THE PERIOD SHOWS THAT YOU WERE PAID THE CORRECT STEP RATE FOR THE GS-3 POSITION OCCUPIED BY YOU AT THE TIME. IN OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 10, 1962, B-149552, TO YOU, THE SETTLEMENT ACTION OF JUNE 22, 1962, WAS SUSTAINED.

WE FIND NOTHING IN YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1962, SUPPLEMENTING OR ALTERING THE FACTS AND LAW UPON WHICH THE SETTLEMENT AND OUR EARLIER DECISION ARE PREDICATED. THEREFORE, OUR DECISION OF AUGUST 10, 1962, MUST BE AFFIRMED.

GAO Contacts