BNUMBER:  B-261661
DATE:  December 26, 1995
TITLE:  Martin Kirchhausen

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Martin Kirchhausen

File:     B-261661

Date:   December 26, 1995

DIGEST

Employee who held a deputy director position is not entitled to 
backpay based on an alleged overlong detail to the higher-graded 
director position since his position description as deputy required 
him to perform the director's duties on an acting basis.  Employee's 
service as acting director entailed performing responsibilities within 
the scope of his regular position as deputy director and, therefore, 
did not constitute a detail to the director position.

DECISION

The Director, Center for Personnel Operations, Social Security 
Administration (SSA), forwards for our review the appeal of Mr. Martin 
Kirchhausen from SSA's denial of his backpay claim.  Mr. Kirchhausen 
seeks backpay on the basis that he was detailed to a higher-graded 
position beyond the agency-imposed limit of 30 days.  For the reasons 
stated hereafter, we affirm the agency's denial of the claim.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Kirchhausen was the GS-14, Deputy Director of the Communications 
Management Office, Division of Integrated Telecommunications 
Management (DITM).  In that capacity and in accordance with his 
position description, he assumed the duties of the director, DITM 
during short-term absences of the director.  In 1992, the incumbent 
director, a GS-15, was selected as a Senior Executive Service 
candidate.  On October 1, 1992, she began her first long-term 
assignment outside of DITM and Mr. Kirchhausen took over her duties as 
director.  Mr. Kirchhausen performed the duties of the director 
through September 16, 1994, when he retired.

On December 7, 1994, Mr. Kirchhausen filed a claim with SSA for 
backpay, asserting that his service as acting director after October 
1, 1992, constituted an overlong detail to a higher-graded position 
for which he should have received a temporary promotion and 
compensation at the GS-15 level.  He relied on a provision in the 
Promotion Plan for SSA Headquarters Management Officials, PMS No. h16, 
Chapter S335-2, October 18, 1992, which states in part:

        "When an employee is temporarily assigned to a position at a 
        higher grade for a period in excess of 30 days, the assignment 
        must be made via temporary promotion, effective the first day 
        of the assignment, unless the employee does not meet the 
        qualifications standards or time-in-grade requirements for 
        promotion to the position."

On March 30, 1995, SSA denied the claim on the basis that Mr. 
Kirchhausen performed his duties as acting director during the period 
in accordance with the responsibilities of his position as deputy 
director, which was designed as an "alter ego" to the director.  The 
agency pointed out that the position description for deputy director 
states:

        Basic Function

        "Serves as full deputy and 'alter ego' to the Director, 
        Division of Communications.  Shares responsibility with the 
        Director for collaboration in all functions of the Division's 
        programs including planning, formulating, adopting, and 
        executing policies, objectives, and goals relating to the 
        present and future operations.  In the absence of the 
        Director, assures [sic] responsibility for division operations 
        and acts on any and all matters with full authority of 
        commitment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Division 
        Director."

The agency found, therefore, that Mr. Kirchhausen was not assigned to 
a higher- graded position requiring a temporary promotion and 
additional compensation.

Mr. Kirchhausen appeals the denial of his claim to our Office stating 
that the length of time (almost 2 years) he performed the director 
duties, coupled with the absence of the incumbent director for 
long-term training, differentiates the claim period from other times 
he assumed the director's duties and warrants backpay.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

To establish a claim for backpay based on a detail to a higher-graded 
position, a claimant must show that (1) an agency regulation or 
agreement requires a temporary promotion for such a detail; and (2) he 
or she actually was detailed to a higher-graded position.  
Turner-Caldwell III, 61 Comp. Gen. 408 (1982); Albert C. Beachley and 
Robert S. Davis, 61 Comp. Gen. 403 (1982).    

The first test is satisfied in this case.  The SSA Promotion Plan 
cited by the claimant explicitly requires that a detail to a 
higher-graded position for a period in excess of 30 days be effected 
by temporary promotion unless the employee does not meet the 
qualifications or time-in-grade requirements for promotion to that 
position.  The agency has not questioned the claimant's eligibility 
for a temporary promotion under the promotion policy if his service as 
acting director constituted a detail to the director's position.

With respect to the second test, the claimant has the burden of 
establishing that he or she was, in fact, detailed to a higher-graded 
position.  See, e.g., Dennis F. Morgan, B-203926, Sept. 22, 1981.  
Where the agency's determination is reasonable, we will not substitute 
our judgment for that of the agency.  See, e.g., Jimmie D. Brewer, 
B-205452, Mar. 15, 1982. 

Our decisions generally treat situations in which an employee's 
position description requires the incumbent to assume the duties of a 
higher-graded position as being distinguishable from a detail.  See 
Katie B. Keys, B-201946, June 16, 1981; Allen C. Howard, B-198393, 
Mar. 17, 1981; and Charles E. Reardon, Jr., B-194694, Nov. 23, 1979.  
But see Turner-Caldwell I, 55 Comp. Gen. 539 (1975).  These decisions, 
however, do not specifically discuss whether, or if so when, such a 
situation might constitute a "detail" to the higher-graded position.

In the context of federal personnel law, a "detail" is the temporary 
assignment of an employee to a different position involving duties 
other than those the employee regularly performs.  See, e.g., Forest 
C. McKown, B-198120, Sept. 18, 1981.  Therefore, in our judgment, an 
employee's assumption of the duties of another position on an acting 
basis when specifically required by the employee's own position 
description fundamentally does not constitute a detail to the other 
position.  Instead, the employee is engaged in carrying out 
responsibilities within the scope of his or her regular position.

This is not an unusual situation.  As we observed in Katie B. Keys, 
supra:

     "Provisions in position descriptions that incumbents substitute 
     for absent higher grade employees are not uncommon and they 
     usually have purposes quite apart from any consideration of 
     details . . .." 

More generally, we noted in Forest C. McKown, supra:

     "[T]here are innumerable instances in the government service 
     where employees of a lower classification perform duties of a 
     higher classification, but as a general rule an employee is 
     entitled only to the salary of the position to which he is 
     actually appointed, regardless of the duties he performs."

While the claimant maintains that the length of his service as acting 
director warrants a different result in this case, his position 
description imposed no time limit on his obligation to act as 
director.  Moreover, regardless of the duration, it is not clear how 
his service as acting director departed significantly from his regular 
duties as deputy.  Based on a reading of his position description, 
quoted above, it appears that he would have continued to perform 
essentially his same duties as deputy during this period but without 
sharing responsibility with a director.

Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Kirchhausen's service during the 
period in question did not constitute a detail to the director's 
position, and we affirm SSA's denial of his claim.

/s/Seymour Efros
forRobert P. Murphy
General Counsel