Retroactive Application of Discontinued Service Retirement

A decision was requested on whether an employee could be retroactively granted discontinued service retirement where the agency did not advise the employee of the extension of a reorganization period which would have allowed him to continue on transitional detail until he was eligible for discontinued service retirement. The agency abolished a number of positions and employees whose positions were being abolished and who were eligible in terms of age and years of service for discontinued service retirement were advised of that option. One of the employees whose job was abolished was detailed to a transition position pending more permanent arrangements. He expressed interest in retiring and was advised that he would not meet the age and service requirements before March 31 of that year. Because he had been advised that he was ineligible for discontinued service retirement he accepted a reassignment to a new position. The employee would have met the age and service requirements for retirement on May 6, 1979, if he had been in transitional detail, but that information was not conveyed to the employee because of an administrative error. The employee filed a grievance concerning the agency's failure to advise him of his proper eligibility status and sought to retire at the date on which retirement had actually been allowed. GAO has made exceptions to the general rule against retroactive personnel actions where administrative or clerical error prevented a personnel action from being effected as intended, resulted in nondiscretionary administrative regulations not being carried out or has deprived the employee of a right granted by statute or regulation. In this case, employees affected by the reorganization were authorized to be detailed for periods of up to 1 year and, if qualified, to elect discontinued service retirement through the period ending September 30, 1979. If the employee had received proper notice of the extended period within which to elect discontinued service retirement, his retirement would have been effected. Wrong notification, in effect, deprived the employee of his option to elect discontinued service retirement. The employee was entitled to be separated retroactively as of May 6, 1979, in order to receive discontinued service retirement.