Skip to Highlights
Highlights

WHICH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 11. YOU SAY THAT IN JANUARY 1965 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER WAS CONDUCTED BY A MR. YOU HAVE HEARD NOTHING FURTHER IN THE MATTER. WE HAVE NO RECORD OF ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU IN DECEMBER 1964. WE FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTLY OF RECORD IS CONFLICTING AND IS INSUFFICIENT TO ENABLE US TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE OR ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION CLAIMED. THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE RECORD DO NOT SHOW THAT YOU WERE PROPERLY REQUIRED TO AND DID REPORT ONE-HALF HOUR BEFORE YOUR SCHEDULED TOUR OF DUTY DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM. YOUR AGENCY HAS REPORTED THAT NO WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO WERE ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY.

View Decision

B-159938, SEP. 14, 1966

TO MR. ROBERT H. BAILEY:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF AUGUST 8, 1966, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING PAYMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 722 1/2 HOURS OF OVERTIME COMPENSATION FROM MAY 2, 1955, TO FEBRUARY 19, 1961, FOR REPORTING ONE HALF HOUR EARLY FOR WORK, AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, WHICH CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY OFFICE SETTLEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1964.

YOU SAY THAT IN JANUARY 1965 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MATTER WAS CONDUCTED BY A MR. LYLE BLISS, INVESTIGATOR FOR THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT, NAVAL AIR STATION, NORTH ISLAND, BUT YOU HAVE HEARD NOTHING FURTHER IN THE MATTER. WE HAVE NO RECORD OF ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM YOU IN DECEMBER 1964, OR THEREAFTER. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENT TO THE INVESTIGATION, YOU REFER TO, WE RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY PERTAINING TO THE CLAIMS OF CIVILIAN GUARDS FOR OVERTIME COMPENSATION AT THE NAVAL AIR STATION, NORTH ISLAND.

UPON REVIEW OF THE RECORD, INCLUDING THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, WE FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTLY OF RECORD IS CONFLICTING AND IS INSUFFICIENT TO ENABLE US TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU ARE OR ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE OVERTIME COMPENSATION CLAIMED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACTS PRESENTED IN THE RECORD DO NOT SHOW THAT YOU WERE PROPERLY REQUIRED TO AND DID REPORT ONE-HALF HOUR BEFORE YOUR SCHEDULED TOUR OF DUTY DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM; ALSO, YOUR AGENCY HAS REPORTED THAT NO WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS TO DO SO WERE ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. FURTHER, WE HAVE NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWING THE LOCATION OR LOCATIONS AT WHICH YOU WORKED ON THE BASE; THE PERIOD OF TIME YOU WORKED AT EACH POST; WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION WAS REQUIRED AND USED TO REPORT TO EACH LOCATION, NOR IS THERE A CLEAR SHOWING AS TO THE PERIOD OF TIME ALLOWED AND USED FOR EATING AT EACH POST WHERE YOU MAY HAVE WORKED DURING THE PERIOD OF YOUR CLAIM.

IT HAS BEEN AN ESTABLISHED RULE OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICERS TO REJECT OR DISALLOW CLAIMS CONCERNING WHICH THEY HAVE REASONABLE DOUBT. DOING SO, CONTROVERSIAL MATTERS ARE RESERVED FOR SCRUTINY IN THE COURTS WHERE THE FACTS MAY BE JUDICIALLY DETERMINED UNDER SWORN TESTIMONY AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE. B-146380, OCTOBER 26, 1962. SEE LONGWILL V. UNITED STATES, 17 CT.CL. 288, 291; CHARLES V. UNITED STATES, 19 CT.CL. 316, 319.

IN VIEW OF THE INSUFFICIENCIES AND CONFLICTS IN THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BEFORE US, YOUR CLAIM IS CONSIDERED TO COME WITHIN THE APPLICATION OF THIS RULE, AND IS, THEREFORE, AGAIN DISALLOWED.

GAO Contacts