About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-192365 1 (1979-02-14)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadgxt0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ' j ~ THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, 0.c. 20548 FILE: B-192365 DATE: February 14, 1979 MATTER OF: n-WhitieGk--ZRetroactive Quality Step Increase ACTION erroneously filed a supervisor's insufficiently documented recommendation of a Quality Step Increase (QSI) for an employee thus causing a delay in the granting of the QSI. Retroactive granting of the QSI may not be made since Action had discretion to grant it and employee had no vested right to it at a particular time under statute or agency regulation. This action concerns a request from the Director of Personnel, Action, for an official ruling as to whether Action may retroactively grant a Quality Step Increase (QSI) to Carolyn Whitlock, the State Program Director in Action's New York Regional Office. Ms. Whitlock was recommended for a QSI on her performance evaluation which was submitted in December 1976. Her supervisor, used an obsolete rating form. Action personnel accepted and filed the form in her official personnel folder insufficiently documented. No follow-up was done to obtain the appropriate documentation for the QSI which would have required the Office Head and the Director of Personnel's signatures. Later her supervisor prepared the cor- rect documentation and necessary approvals were obtained. Action does not wish to penalize Ms. Whitlock for the failure of its person- nel to correctly complete her promotion package. However, while Action believes its delay in processing the QSI was unjustified or unwarranted personnel action under the Back Pay Act of 1966, 5 U.S.C. (1976), it is uncertain as to whether it may grant Ms. Whitlock a QSI with backpav for the retroactive period. The awards statute and implementing regulations vest dis- Cretion in agencies to make awards and their determinations will not be upset except for a clear showing of abuse of discretion. Shaller v. U.S., 202 Ct. Cl. 571 (1973), cert. denied 414 U.S. 1092. We believe the same principle applies to the awarding of QSI under 5 U.S.C. 5336. Thus, an agency has discretion to approve or disapprove a QSI. See John H. Brown, 56 Comp. Gen. 57 (1976). DIGEST:

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most