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.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobadjyy0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
0/
/
DECISION
FILE:
THE! CQMPTROLLER O~hNERAL
OF rHE UNITIED BTATEE
WA B H IN GTON, I[0(, 20 54 8
B-202296
DATE:
December 29, 1981
MATTER C
DIGEBTt
Betty Akin llolmes--Backpay--Retci.oactivi
correction of grade
Because her qualifications had been
incorrectly evaluated, employee was
reassigned to another position in a
different job series it grade GS-4
rather than the correc gradeof
GS-5, which she had he1 in her
previous position. Emplnyee ts not
entitled to retroactive promotion
to GS-5 since the error dil not
prevent a personnel actionyfrom
taking effect as originally intended,
the employee was not deprived of a
right granted by statute or regula-
tion nor was apnordiscretionary agency
regulation or policy violated.
In this decision, we find that the claimant,
Mrs. Betty Akin Holmes, emploSed by the Social Security
Administration, Department of Hlea]th and Human Services,
is not entitled to compensation under the Back Pay Act
for retroactive correction of her grade to a higher level.
Mrs. Holmes had been a Secretary, at grade GS-5,
step 3. She applied for a Service Representative positlon
and on January 27, 1977, she was reassigned to the new job
series at grade GS-4, step 4. Initially, she was informed
thct in the new job series she could not qualify for
grade GS-5 and that she was required to begin at GS-4 in
a career ladder progresjion from that grade through grades
GS-5, 6, and 7. She signed a statementgagreeing to accept
the Service Representative position cst grade GS-4 under
the impression she could not qualify as a GS-5. It was
lator determined that she could have been transferred
to the Service Representative position at grade GS-5,
step 3. A mistake had been made in evaluating her quali-
fying experience, and as a result she was erroneously
assigned the GS-4 position. Upon review of her records,
she was credited with one bdditional year of general
experience she had gained on a previous job and effective
February 13, 1977, she was promoted to GS-5, step 3.
3FI](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadjyy0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)