Barnett K. Ragsdale

B-271308 Apr 18, 1996 Jump To VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights An employee who was subject to a 104-week waiting period before his next scheduled within-grade pay increase (WGI). Was overpaid for over 15 months until the agency discovered the error. The denial of his request for waiver of the resulting debt is sustained. Employees are expected to know the waiting periods for WGIs. There are no apparent factors that reasonably could have led him to believe he was entitled to the early WGI. He was not eligible for his next within-grade increase (WGI) until September 1995. Ragsdale then was notified of the error and asked to refund the $980 in erroneous payments he had received. Stating that he was not aware that he was being paid erroneously. He also stated that he was unaware of how pay was computed upon a promotion and assumed that the increase he received in February was related to his promotion. View Decision Matter of: Barnett K. Ragsdale File: B-271308 Date: April 18, 1996 An employee who was subject to a 104-week waiting period before his next scheduled within-grade pay increase (WGI), erroneously received a WGI after just 5 months, and was overpaid for over 15 months until the agency discovered the error. The denial of his request for waiver of the resulting debt is sustained. Absent mitigating circumstances, employees are expected to know the waiting periods for WGIs. In this case, at the time of the error, the employee had been employed by the agency for 6 years, during which he had experienced two 52-week and one 104-week waiting periods for WGIs, and there are no apparent factors that reasonably could have led him to believe he was entitled to the early WGI. DECISION Mr. Barnett K. Ragsdale, a secretary with the General Accounting Office (GAO), appeals our Claims Group's settlement, Z-2942893, Jan. 30, 1996, denying his request for waiver of his $980 debt to the agency. We affirm the settlement. BACKGROUND The agency promoted Mr. Ragsdale from a GS-6, step 5 position to a GS-7, step 5 position on September 19, 1993. As a result, he was not eligible for his next within-grade increase (WGI) until September 1995, after completing 2 years of service at the new pay rate. However, due to an administrative error, Mr. Ragsdale received a WGI (step 6 of GS-7) effective February 20, 1994, [1] just 5 months after his promotion. As a result, he received erroneous salary payments until May 13, 1995, when the agency detected the error during a quality control review. Mr. Ragsdale then was notified of the error and asked to refund the $980 in erroneous payments he had received. Mr. Ragsdale asked the agency to waive collection of the debt, stating that he was not aware that he was being paid erroneously. He also stated that he was unaware of how pay was computed upon a promotion and assumed that the increase he received in February was related to his promotion. In its reply to this request, the agency noted that Mr. Ragsdale had been promoted twice since becoming employed by GAO in February 1988, and had experienced two 52-week waiting periods and one 104-week waiting period for WGIs during his tenure at GAO. The agency therefore concluded that Mr. Ragsdale had sufficient experience at the time he first received the erroneous WGI to have questioned why he was receiving a pay increase just 5 months after a promotion. Since he had not done so, the agency denied his request for waiver. Mr. Ragsdale then appealed the agency's decision to our Claims Group, asserting, in addition to his argument that his lack of experience in pay matters justified a waiver, that his case was similar to the case of another employee in which the agency had granted waiver. In its report to the Claims Group, the agency noted that the other employee referred to by Mr. Ragsdale had only 2.5 years of experience, compared to his 6 years and had experienced only one 52-week waiting period for a WGI, compared to the two 52-week and one 104-week waiting periods experienced by Mr. Ragsdale. The Claims Group settlement sustained the agency's denial based on the general rule that, absent mitigating circumstances, employees are expected to be aware of the federal pay structure and the fundamental requirements for pay increases. With respect to the waiver granted the other employee, to which Mr. Ragsdale had referred, the Claims Group noted that each request for waiver must be decided on the basis of its own merits. Mr. Ragsdale now requests reconsideration of the Claims Group settlement, asserting essentially the same grounds for waiver he asserted earlier: first, that he had little knowledge of federal personnel matters and; second, that the agency waived the debt of a similarly situated employee. He also states that for several years he has been confused by the leave and earnings statements he receives. OPINION The Comptroller General is authorized by 5 U.S.C. Sec.