Sick and tired
When Patrick Gillen retired from the Defense Department, he asked the government to give him more time to ship his property from his post in England back to the United States.
The department gave Gillen, who retired in June 1999, two years to ship his goods at government expense from the United Kingdom to the United States. But Gillen claimed that he and his wife, who had also retired from the Defense Department, were receiving medical treatment in England and did not have the "emotional or physical strength and stamina" to move their possessions back to the United States by June 2001. Gillen asked the government to grant them an extra year to move.
According to federal regulations, the government can pay travel and transportation costs for former employees until two years after their separation date. However, the Defense Department told Gillen it could not waive the deadline for travel and transportation costs.
Under a pilot program started in 2000, the Board of Contract Appeals can refer certain extraordinary cases for consideration by the General Services Administration's deputy associate administrator. But the Board of Contract Appeals instead ruled in favor of the Defense Department, saying that Gillen's situation was not unusual and that "other federal employees confronted with personal problems have been held to the requirement that travel and transportation must be completed within the time required by either the applicable regulations or a travel authorization."
The board also concluded that extending the deadline for Gillen would only benefit him and not the government. "If Mr. Gillen's time to begin his travel and transportation were extended, the costs incurred to return him, his wife and his household goods to the United States would be for his benefit," the board said.
In the Matter of Patrick R. Gillen, Board of Contract Appeals, General Services Administration (GSBCA 15748-RELO), April 11, 2002.
Disability duress
In 1999, Emery Jordan, a facility manager for the Air Force, was fired for being physically unable to perform his duties.
Jordan appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board and in December 1999, a negotiated settlement allowed Jordan to retire because of his disability rather than be fired. Under the settlement, the Office of Personnel Management had jurisdiction over Jordan's retirement payments.
In June 2000, Jordan asked the MSPB to enforce the settlement agreement for several reasons: he received his retirement payment late; the amount was less than he had expected; OPM contended they had overpaid him and wanted the extra money back; and the Air Force reduced his final paycheck. Jordan also claimed he had filed his disability retirement application with OPM under duress.
An administrative judge denied Jordan's enforcement request, which would have reinstated his right to challenge the Air Force again for firing him. Because OPM held responsibility for Jordan's disability payments, the Air Force was not responsible for the amount or timing of the payments, the judge said. The duress and coercion charges were unfounded because Jordan's appeal sought to enforce the very petition he claimed he was forced to sign, the judge said.
Jordan asked the full MSPB to review the judge's decision, but it declined to do so. He then filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The court upheld the MSPB's decision because it determined that the Air Force had honored its portion of the settlement agreement by allowing Jordan to leave the government as a retiree.
Emery M. Jordan v. Air Force, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (Doc. #01-3267), April 4, 2002.
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.