The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
OPM Contact: Jo-Ann Chabot
This is a claim for payment, with interest, for unused sick leave. The claimant reports that, while he was employed with the [agency] he became ill because of a work-related disability. He reports that, on September 22, 1988, the [agency] advised him that he would be removed from employment, effective October 14, 1988, because he was not able to perform the duties of his position. The claimant also reports that his application for disability retirement was approved in October 1988. However, the claimant reports that he was receiving Workers Compensation benefits instead of disability retirement benefits until the OWCP terminated his Workers Compensation benefits in July 1993.
The claimant states that his October 22, 1988 pay stub showed 417 hours of unused sick leave to his credit. He claims that, before he was separated from employment, the [agency] should have permitted him to use the sick leave or to substitute the sick leave for the time he spent in leave without pay. He also states that he was not permitted to apply the unused sick leave to his time in service for retirement purposes. Therefore, the claimant is seeking payment, with interest, for the unused sick leave. This claim is dismissed for the reason stated below.
In accordance with the Barring Act, 31 U.S.C. 3702(b)(1), every claim against the United States is barred from consideration unless such claim is received within six years after the date that the claim first accrued. Matter of Robert O. Schultz, B-261461 (November 27, 1995). The Barring Act does not merely establish administrative guidelines, it specifically prescribes the time within which a claim must be received in order for it to be considered on its merits. Matter of Nguyen Thi Hao, B-253096, (August 11, 1995). The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority to disregard the provisions of the Barring Act, make exceptions to its provisions, or waive the time limitation that it imposes. See Matter of Nguyen Thi Hao, supra; Matter of Jackie A. Murphy , B-251301 (April 23, 1993); Matter of Alfred L. Lillie, B-209955, May 31, 1983. We cannot consider this claim because it was not received until March 19, 1999, approximately 10 years after it accrued. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed.
This settlement is final. No further administrative review of this claim is available within the Office of Personnel Management. Nothing in this settlement limits the claimant's right to bring an action in an appropriate United States Court.