LinkedIn Logo

Board for Correction Case No. 131-91


Board for Correction Case No. 131-91

192.00 Pay and Allowances (Includes Allotments of Pay / Allowances / Basic Pay) - Retroactive special pay

Board Recommendation on Request of: xxxxxxxxx, Case No. 131-91

Xxxxxxx filed an application with the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records dated Xxx 1991. He alleged that he had lost entitlement to a financial benefit due to an administrative error by the U.S. Government. He asked the Board to authorize payment of $11,000 due on his 1990 Incentive Special Pay-Research Officer Group (ISP-ROG) contract and to correct his tenure status so that it will not be an issue in future contracts.

We did not believe the facts in his request justified submitting a complete Advisory Opinion or preparing a complete Case Summary. We also sought to render a decision prior to receipt of his Xxxxxxx 1991 payment. For these reasons, it was not processed through the complete case development cycle. His application and supporting documentation are contained in the attached Case Record. The request was considered on Xxx 1991.



Ellen Wormser
Executive Director

Thomas E. White, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary


Robert W. Mckinney, Ph.D.
Director, Division of Safety
Office of Research Services, XXX


The Board found that:

  1. Xxxxxxx ISP-ROG contract had covered the period Xxxxxxx 1990 to Xxxxxxx 1994. The personnel order for his contract had been issued on Xxxxxxx 1990, based on his billet and tenure track status at that time. This had qualified him to receive $5,000 instead of $16,000 had he been a tenured xxxxxxxxx. The Division of Commissioned Personnel (DCP) had received a request in xxxx 1990 to change his tenure status, but its authority to initiate new ISP-ROG contracts had ended on Xxxxxxx 1990. [The Board became aware that the date on which DCP learned of the change to his tenure status was approximately three months after the effective date of his ISP-ROG contract.]
  2. The procedure used in 1985 to distinguish between officers who had demonstrated the potential to develop original research: tenured officers and those who had not: tenure track officers, had not been fully explained by the record. Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx, authored the justification in 1985 to employ Xxxxxxx. His description of the officer's qualifications categorized him as tenured rather than as tenure track. However, there was no evidence that his qualifications had been reviewed by a formal panel.
  3. xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, xxxx, had commented on the actions by XXX management in 1985 in a memorandum dated Xxx 29, 1991. He said " is clear that XXX was approving a tenured appointment irrespective of whether it was in the Civil Service or the PHS Commissioned Corps..
  4. Tenured status decisions had been made effective by processing PHS Form-155. Although xxxxxxx returned to the government in 1985, the record did not indicate that XXX had ever processed a Form-1662 for him for any purpose prior to 1990.
  5. xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Office of the Director at XXX had explained in a memorandum to Xxxxxxx dated Xxx 1991, that ?...a series of errors were made in reporting your correct tenure status to the Division of Commissioned Personnel Office...? She had referred to a change in his ROG status from tenure track (K) to tenured (R) on Xxxxxxx 1990, early enough to have had his record corrected entitling him to the higher ISP-ROG payment. [The Board became aware that this date was seven days after the effective date of his ISP-ROG contract and six days before DCP's authority to negotiate multiyear contracts had ended.]
  6. Xxxxxx, xxxxxx, xxxx, had entered a statement in the record dated Xxx 1991, in which he said: Xxxxxxx was appointed as xxxxx xxxxxx on Xxx 1985, when he reactivated his commission..


The Board concluded that Xxxxxxx supervisory management had intended for him to have received tenured status when reactivated, but that through a series of admitted administrative errors on the part of the XXX personnel office, this had not happened.


The Board recommended that Xxxxxxx request be upheld. Approval of this recommendation requires that his record show he had been tenured prior to Xxxxxxx 1990. Approval also requires that he receive $11,000 due on his 1990 contract and that his future contracts reflect his tenured status.

We certify that these recommendations reflect the views and actions taken by the Board on this officer's request and that they have been concurred in by a majority of the Board members.

We also certify that the Case Record contains all of the information received on his request and that, in addition to applicable statutes, regulations and policies, it was considered by the Board in arriving at this recommendation.

Finally, we certify that a quorum of Board members was present when xxxxxxxx request was considered.

If you approve, please sign below.

Robert W. McKinney, Ph.D.
Division of Safety
Office of Research Services, XXX

Reviewed and Approved:

I hereby approve the recommendation of the Board for Correction on the request of Xxxxxxx received and considered in accordance with the authority of Section 221a(a) (12) of the Public Health Service Act (P.L. 96-76, as amended) and 42 U.S.C. 213a(a) (12).

Wilford J. Forbush
Director, Office of Management

Attachment: Case Record

Anyone wishing to obtain an un-redacted copy of any of the decisions should submit a request for the un-redacted decision under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Such requests should be directed to the PHS FOIA Office, Parklawn Building, Room 17 A-46, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; telephone 301-443-5252; fax 301-443-0925.