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/gaobadkhf0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
{is, 'ri&S LE 31NR l
CECI10N , )fr HI U N IT2D3 TAT 1%'8
,',:..vy; WAUHIN3TON, 0,0, 1305 4n
FILE: B202039 -DATEi M1ay 7, 1982
MATTER OF:, Suggestion Award-Claim for Interest: to Ccxnpensate
Suggesters for Delay of Award--Reconsideratlon
DIGESTi Although Army beccnie cc mitted to ccrpeniae sugcjesters
w.hen Army impleTented cost-saving suggestion, suggesters
are not erititled to interest frcm the date their sugges-
tion was ixlemented,
Mr, Vernon J. Lahay has requetited that we reconsider our decision
of Apil 3, 1981, in which we declined to add interest charges to a
cash award which he and another Army employee had received in tecember
1980 for a cost-saving suggestion irplmented in January 1977, The
claimant asserts that the Amny entere. d into a contract with ht9 when
it accepted and implemented his suggestion, that he was entitled to
compensation under that contract when the suggestion was implemLented,
and that interest should therefore be calculated from that time until
payment vas made in 1980, .ile, umon reconsideration, vie agree with
Mr. Lahay that the Army was corn.itted to mahe a cash award at the
point at which it implemented his suggestion, we must still reject
his claim for additional payment, Although Mr. Lahay was entit.ed
to be cCmpensated for his suggestion in accordance with Army Regula-
tion 672-20, he is not entitled to have the sun adjusted by our Office
to include interest on the award from the date his suggestion was
implmented.
On August 25, 1976, Mr. Lahay and Mr. Dehmar J. Rockemann sub-
mitted to the Arry for evaluation the su~gestion on which this claim
is ba , .d. The suggestion, which ilnvolved data processing, was put
into effect on January I, 1977. On October 9, 1980, an award of
$3,085 for resulting tangib]e benefits was approved, and Mr. Lahay
and Mr. Rockemann received the award in December 1980. In their
original claim to this office, they sought additional payiment to cer-
pensate them for losses which they attributed to imputed investment
earnings, as well as inflation, for the 4-year pericd, January 1977
through December 1980. They also sought interest on the award and
compensation to cover thle losses suffered when they paid higher per-
sonal income tax in 1930. (They contended that, had the award been
received in 1977, they would have paid less taxes on it due to their
lower base incomes For that year.) Wie denied each of these claims in
our decision, B-202039, April 3, 1981. Mr. bahay seeks reconsidera-
tion of our denial of interest on his award fran the date his sugges-
tion was implemented,
I I 9AI p- ,I Pf. - . .. - .* . ,* ' , .- - .q...I - -, -.. , . -
. . -- . - . .~. - . ..y - - I t -- --'r I%- Y 1rs-.7'r](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobadkhf0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)