DOD Financial Management: Adjudication of Butterbaugh Claims for 
the Restoration of Annual Leave or Pay (28-JUL-08, GAO-08-948R). 
                                                                 
This report formally transmits a briefing in response to section 
1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year	 
2008. The Act required GAO to review and report on the		 
adjudication of claims filed as a result of the 2003 decision by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of 
Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice. In that case, the Court	 
decided that federal employees who are members of the military	 
reserves should not have been charged military leave for reserve 
duty days that occurred outside their civilian work schedule.	 
Under existing federal law, employees are entitled to seek	 
restoration of leave or monetary compensation. On July 8, 16, and
22, 2008, we provided briefings on the status of the adjudication
of such claims by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and 
selected other agencies to cognizant committee staff to satisfy  
the mandate. Based on the results of our review, we are not	 
making any recommendations for agency action.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-948R					        
    ACCNO:   A83126						        
  TITLE:     DOD Financial Management: Adjudication of Butterbaugh    
Claims for the Restoration of Annual Leave or Pay		 
     DATE:   07/28/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Annual leave					 
	     Armed forces reserves				 
	     Claims processing					 
	     Claims settlement					 
	     Expense claims					 
	     Federal employees					 
	     Financial management				 
	     Judicial remedies					 
	     Leave claims					 
	     Leave restoration					 
	     Military leave					 
	     Military reserve personnel 			 
	     Reporting requirements				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-948R

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

GAO-08-948R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 28, 2008: 

Congressional Committees: 

Subject: DOD Financial Management: Adjudication of Butterbaugh Claims 
for the Restoration of Annual Leave or Pay: 

This report formally transmits the attached briefing in response to 
section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. The Act required GAO to review and report on the adjudication of 
claims filed as a result of the 2003 decision by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Butterbaugh v. 
Department of Justice.[Footnote 1] In that case, the Court decided that 
federal employees who are members of the military reserves should not 
have been charged military leave for reserve duty days that occurred 
outside their civilian work schedule. Under existing federal law, 
employees are entitled to seek restoration of leave or monetary 
compensation. On July 8, 16, and 22, 2008, we provided briefings on the 
status of the adjudication of such claims by the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service and selected other agencies to cognizant committee 
staff to satisfy the mandate. Based on the results of our review, we 
are not making any recommendations for agency action. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Director, Defense Finance 
and Accounting Service, and the heads of the other seven agencies 
selected for review. This report will also be available at no charge on 
GAO's Website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your 
staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-9095 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Key contributors to this report were J. 
Christopher Martin, Senior-Level Technologist; Evelyn Logue, Assistant 
Director; Darby Smith, Assistant Director; F. Abe Dymond, Assistant 
General Counsel; Kristi Karls; Jason Kirwan; Nkosi Nantambu; John 
Vicari; and Tory Wudtke. 

Signed by: 

Paula Rascona:
Director, Financial Management and Assurance: 

List of Congressional Committees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

Enclosure: Slide presentation: 

Adjudication of Butterbaugh Claims for the Restoration of Annual Leave 
or Pay: 

Briefing for the Congressional Defense Committees: 

Briefing Agenda: 
* Introduction; 
* Summary of Observations; 
* Background; 
* Objectives; 
* Scope; 
* Methodology; 
* Observations; 
* Agency Views. 

Introduction: 

In 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in 
Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice,[Footnote 2] decided that federal 
employees who are members of the military reserves should not have been 
charged military leave for reserve duty days that occurred outside 
their civilian work schedule. Under existing federal law, employees are 
entitled to seek restoration of leave or monetary compensation through 
various options: 

* Administrative claim ï¿½ an employee files a claim with the agency with 
which they were employed during the period that they were wrongfully 
charged leave; 

* File a complaint with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); 

* Seek assistance from the Department of Labor or Office of Special 
Counsel. 

Federal law, enacted in its current form in 1980, grants federal 
employees who are members of the military reserves or National Guard 
(reservists) 15 days (120 hours) of military leave annually to perform 
reserve duty or training. 

For decades, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interpreted that 
entitlement as meaning 15 calendar days, rather than workdays. 

Therefore, employees who were required to attend reserve training or 
duty over the weekend were charged military leave. 

If employees ran out of military leave, they had to use other types of 
leave, such as annual leave or leave without pay to complete their 
military service. 

In January 2001, because of some amendments to the leave laws, OPM 
modified its guidance to advise agencies to charge military leave only 
for regularly scheduled workdays. 

The 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (2008 NDAA) requires GAO to 
report on the Defense Finance and Accounting Serviceï¿½s (DFAS) and 
selected other agenciesï¿½ adjudication of claims as a result of the 
Butterbaugh decision. 

This briefing is intended to satisfy the 2008 NDAA mandate noted above. 

Summary of Observations: 

Agencies are not required to track their Butterbaugh claims or to 
provide external reports on these claims: 

* Agencies provided us available data, but were unable to provide
assurances regarding the completeness or reliability of the data. 

Agenciesï¿½ ability to process claims depends on the availability and 
quality of the documentation: 

* Claimants are expected to submit evidence necessary to support their
claim and may request necessary documentation from the agency with
which they where employed during the period that they are seeking
restored leave or compensation; 

* Agencies often could not provide the necessary documentation
because they are only required to maintain leave and earnings records
for 6 years; 

* Lack of documentation has resulted in denial of claims. 

Table 1: Summary of Available Data on Claims Filed and Provided by
Departments/Agencies: 

Claims: Total; 
DFAS: 11,305; 
USDA: 66; 
DHS; 75; 
DOI: 30; 
DOJ: 82; 
VA: 203; 
GSA: 7; 
IRS: 64; 
Total: 11,832. 

Claims: Denied; 
DFAS: 3,410; 
USDA: 9; 
DHS; 8; 
DOI: 0; 
DOJ: 11; 
VA: 19; 
GSA: Not provided; 
IRS: Not provided; 
Total: 3,457. 

Claims: Leave restored (hours); 
DFAS: 81,397; 
USDA: 2,565; 
DHS; 7,684; 
DOI: 2,252; 
DOJ: 5,093; 
VA: 11,896; 
GSA: Not provided; 
IRS: 3,496; 
Total: 114,383. 

Claims: Amount Paid (in thousands); 
DFAS: $1,919; 
USDA: $100; 
DHS; $23; 
DOI: $0; 
DOJ: $41; 
VA: $62; 
GSA: Not provided; 
IRS: Not provided; 
Total: $2,145. 

Claims: Outstanding Claims; 
DFAS: 12; 
USDA: 16; 
DHS; 3; 
DOI: 5; 
DOJ: 1; 
VA: 10; 
GSA: 0; 
IRS: 2; 
Total: 49. 

Agency data has not been verified. DFAS data is as of June 13, 2008; 
the data from the other agencies was received during periods ending 
between March 2008 and June 2008. 

[End of table] 

Background: 

Until 2001, reservists were often charged military leave for weekends 
or other non-workdays that occurred within a typical 2-week period of 
training or other extended reserve duty. 

If employees ran out of military leave, they had to use other types of 
leave, such as annual leave or leave without pay, to complete their 
military service. 

In January 2001, after Congress amended the military leave statute, OPM 
issued guidance stating that reservists should only be charged military 
leave for reserve duty performed on their regular civilian workdays. 

In 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Butterbaugh 
v. Department of Justice, held that even prior to OPMï¿½s 2001 guidance, 
federal employees should not have been charged military leave for 
reserve duty days that occurred outside their civilian work schedule. 

Subsequently in June 2004, MSPB held that improperly charging military 
leave constituted a denial of a ï¿½benefit of employmentï¿½ under the 
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), for 
which employees could be entitled to corrective action or compensation 
from their respective agencies. 

* Under USERRA, such employees may file a claim for restoration of 
annual leave, or if separated from federal employment, monetary 
compensation. 

In October 2004, OPM issued guidance on adjudicating Butterbaugh 
claims. The guidance: 

* requires documentation of non-workdays within a period of military 
reserve duty; 

* indicates that one day of annual leave should be restored for each 
non-workday a reservist was charged military leave (up to 4 days per 
fiscal year); 

* does not specifically require claimants to prove that they had to use 
annual leave or leave without pay for military duty as a result of 
being improperly charged military leave; 

* states that claims are subject to the Barring Act, which places a 6-
year statute of limitations on federal employee leave claims. 

In August 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found 
[Footnote 3] that: 

* Improperly charged military leave alone does not constitute a denial 
of benefits of employment; there must also be a loss of annual or other
leave resulting from the improper charging of military leave (i.e.,
claimant incurred ï¿½harmï¿½); 

* Claimants have the burden of proving harm; 

* Agencies were not consistent in how they compensated Butterbaugh
claimants; 

* Agencies may exercise discretion in resolving claims by providing 
more compensation than an individual has been able to prove as a matter 
of administrative convenience and to ensure that veterans are given the 
benefit of the doubt. 

In a separate August 2007 decision, the Court of Appeals held [Footnote 
4] that there is no statute of limitations applicable to USERRA and its 
predecessor statute [Footnote 5] for filing claims resulting from 
improperly charged military leave. 

* Claims can be filed as far back as 1980, when the current version of 
the military leave statute was enacted. 

If a reservist has not maintained personal copies of relevant records, 
they can file a request for records with the agency with which they 
were employed at the time they were wrongfully charged leave. 

* Federal record retention regulations only requires agencies to retain 
payroll records for 6 years, so some records may be unavailable; 

* Relevant information generally needed to file a claim includes: 
- military service records, including military orders; 
- civilian pay records; 
- time and attendance, and other related records that would demonstrate 
that they were engaged in one or more periods of military duty that 
included non-workdays during the applicable claim period. 

Objectives: 

The 2008 NDAA requires GAO to report on: 

(1) An estimate of the number of members of the reserve components of 
the Armed Forces, both past and present, who are entitled to 
compensation. 

(2) An assessment of the current policies, procedures, and timeliness of
DFAS in implementing and resolving claims. 

(3) Whether DFASï¿½s decisions regarding Butterbaugh claims follow a
consistent pattern of resolution. 

(4) An assessment of whether or not DFAS is providing more compensation
than an individual has been able to prove. 

(5) An estimate of the total Butterbaugh compensation for both past and
present members of the reserves as a result of court decisions regarding
restoration of leave. 

(6) A comparison of DFAS claims processing with that of other selected 
federal agencies. 

(7) The number of claims that resulted in pay/leave being restored. 

(8) The number of claims denied by DFAS. 

(9) An estimate of the time required for DFAS and other selected 
federal agencies to resolve a claim. 

(10) The backlog of claims at DFAS and other selected federal agencies. 

(11) An estimate of the time required for DFAS to resolve outstanding 
claims. 

(12) The reasonableness of DFASï¿½s documentation requirements for 
resolving claims. 

(13) A comparison of DFASï¿½s documentation requirements with that of 
other selected federal agencies. 

Scope: 

We focused primarily on DFAS, which has received significantly more 
claims than other agencies selected for review. 

ï¿½ In addition, we selected the 7 federal departments/agencies below for 
limited reviews. Our selection criteria was agencies with the largest 
civilian workforces and/or those that provide payroll services to other 
federal entities: 

* Department of Agriculture (USDA); 
* Department of Homeland Security (DHS); 
* Department of the Interior (DOI); 
* Department of Justice (DOJ); 
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); 
* General Services Administration (GSA); 
* Internal Revenue Service (IRS); 

Although the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) has the largest civilian 
workforce, they follow their own personnel regulations and are not 
subject to the military leave statute. 

Methodology: DFAS: 

Obtained, through interviews, walkthroughs, and documentation reviews, 
an understanding of policies, procedures, and controls, including 
supervision and the monitoring and tracking of the adjudication of 
Butterbaugh claims. 

Obtained available DFAS data on Butterbaugh claims: 

* number of claims processed, denied, etc.; 
* amount of leave restored and monetary compensation paid; 
* estimate of potential future claims. 

Selected a random sample of 115 DFAS cases for detailed review of 
available data of DFAS decisions and supporting documentation. 

Available DFAS documentation did not include separate data on claims 
filed versus requests for documentation needed to support a claim. 

Accordingly, we only reviewed items in our sample that were actual 
claims filed with DFAS and we did not review other sample items that 
did not meet this criterion. 

Resulting sample contained 106 cases that were related to claims for 
restored leave or monetary compensation. 

Compared DFAS policies, procedures, and data to other agencies and to 
Court of Appeals and MSPB case law. 

Methodology: Other Agencies: 

Obtained, through interviews and documentation reviews, an 
understanding of policies, procedures, and controls, including 
supervision, monitoring, and tracking of Butterbaugh claims. 

Obtained available agency data on Butterbaugh claims: 

* number of claims processed, denied, etc.; 
* amount of leave restored and compensation paid; 
* estimate of potential future claims. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 through July 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Observations: Objective 1: Estimated population of reservists entitled 
to compensation: 

None of the agencies have reliable estimates of the number of potential 
claimants: 

* The time period (1980 ï¿½ 2000) from which Butterbaugh claims may arise 
far exceeds the availability of records to use as a basis for 
estimates; 
- Without records, it is not possible to reliably determine the number 
of reservists entitled to compensation. 

Observations: Objective 2: Assessment of DFAS policies, procedures, and
timeliness: 

DFAS policies are generally consistent with court and MSPB decisions on
USERRA claims entitlement and evidentiary burdens. 

A key component of DFAS policy is the requirement to determine whether 
claimants incurred ï¿½harmï¿½ as a result of improperly charged military 
leave: 

* Claimants incur harm if, after having military leave charged for non-
workdays, they have to use annual leave or leave without pay for 
subsequent reserve duty because their military leave has been 
exhausted; 

* For example, if a reservist had 3 continuous weeks of military duty 
and was charged 16 hours of military leave for each of the 2 intervening
weekends in addition to 8 hours per each weekday, the military leave 
would be used up by the beginning of the third week. The reservist 
would then incur harm because annual leave or leave without pay would 
have to be charged for the last 4 days of duty. 

In April 2005, DOD initially issued a memo notifying defense services 
and agencies of employeesï¿½ rights to file Butterbaugh-related claims in
accordance with OPM guidance. 

In June 2006, DOD issued revised guidance based on MSPB decisions 
allowing reservists to file claims as far back as 1980. 

In October 2006, DFAS issued a memo which stated explicitly that 
claimants must have evidence of harm (use of annual leave or leave 
without pay resulting from improperly charged military leave). 

In March - May 2008, DFAS issued several new guidance documents: 

* A desk guide for processing claims; 

* Quality assurance procedures to ensure that claims adjudications are
fully documented, accurate, and consistent; 

* A contingency plan for addressing any future backlog of claims. 

DFAS claims are processed by payroll personnel: 

* DFAS policy requires supervisory review of 10 percent of all of its
transactions; 

* However, DFAS officials stated that until recently, they were unable 
to comply with this policy due to staffing limitations. 

DFAS officials indicated that initial delays in processing early 2007 
Butterbaugh claims were a result of a large backlog of documentation 
requests rather than actual claims submitted by potential claimants. 
DFAS hired contractors to address the documentation request backlog. 

As of mid-June 2008, DFAS appears to be processing both documentation 
requests and claims in a reasonable period of time--generally within 1-2
weeks. 

Observations: Objective 3: Consistency of DFAS decisions: 

DFAS did not have reliable procedures or adequate internal controls to
ensure claims were processed in accordance with its policies. 

Our analysis of 106 claims disclosed numerous instances in which more
compensation was provided to claimants than supported by documentation. 

* 64 claimants received more restored leave than was supported by
documentation; 

* 5 claimants received more pay than was supported by documentation; 

* 2 claimants received less restored leave than was supported by 
documentation; 

* 12 claims had sufficient documentation to support DFASï¿½s decisions 
regarding the claims ï¿½ 1 of which was approved and 11 that were denied 
due to insufficient documentation; 

* 23 claims lacked sufficient documentation to determine what decision 
DFAS made regarding the claim. 

Observations: Objective 4: Whether DFAS provides more compensation than
proven: 

As noted in objective 3, our analysis of 106 DFAS claims identified 69 
claims for which compensation exceeded the documented harm. 

* 64 claimants received more restored leave than was supported by 
documentation; 

* 5 claimants received more pay than was supported by documentation. 

However, should the individual file an amended claim, it is possible 
that a review of pay periods not covered by the original claim may 
indicate that the compensation or a portion of the compensation is 
justified. 

DFAS reviewed 56 claims (none of which were in our sample) processed in 
the September-December 2007 timeframe. DFASï¿½s initial results identified
issues similar to those previously noted. 

* DFAS found that 48 claims resulted in restored leave or monetary 
compensation in excess of that supported by claimant documentation: 
- 28 claims resulted in 2,006 hours of restored leave; 
- 20 claims resulted in potential overpayments of $45,600. 

* DFAS is in the process of validating its results. Upon completion of
this effort, DFAS intends to initiate actions to withdraw restored leave
and collect overpayments, as appropriate. 

In light of above results, DFAS has begun to perform a supervisory 
review of all claims processed between January and June 2008. 

Observations: Objective 5: Estimated compensation: 

According to DFAS officials, DFAS considered an across-the-board
settlement rather than incurring the administrative costs to adjudicate
individual claims. 

However, based on the rough calculation outlined below, DFAS officials
determined that it would be more cost effective to process individual
claims than to make an across-the-board settlement. Specifically, DFAS
estimated: 

* the average population of reservists to be about 84,400 each year; 

* that each reservist would receive 2 days of pay, or an average of 
$300, per year from 1996 through 2000, for a total of $1,500, and; 

* that the resulting Butterbaugh compensation could reach about $127
million (84,400 reservists x $1,500 each). 

Other agenciesï¿½ estimates: 

* DOI: $200,000 and 6,214 hours of restored leave (partial estimate 
based on responses from two bureausï¿½the National Park Service and the 
Minerals Management Service); 

* DOJ: 232 hours of restored leave (partial estimate based on response 
from one componentï¿½the Civil Division); 

* DHS, GSA, IRS, USDA, and VA did not provide estimates. 

DFAS and other agencies were unable to provide assurances regarding the 
reliability of the data used to derive the estimates. 

Observations: Objective 6: Comparison of claims handling: 

Supervisory review of claims by other agencies: 

* GSA stated that its claims receive supervisory review; 

* IRS and some bureaus within DOI, DOJ, & USDA stated that supervisory
review is performed on a limited number of claims; 

* DHS and VA stated that claims do not receive supervisory review; 
- Each of approximately 220 VA locations process their own claims. 

Statute of limitations for filing claims with the agency: 

* DFAS, DHS, DOI, DOJ, GSA, USDA, and VA, process claims as far back as
1980; 

* IRS accepted claims going back no more than 6 years from the date of 
claim, based on OPM guidance: 
- IRS told us that claims going back more than 6 years can be filed 
with the MSPB. 

(Note: documentation requirements are discussed under objectives 12 and 
13). 

Observations: Objective 7: DFAS claims resulting in leave restoration 
or pay: 

As of June 13, 2008, DFAS documentation showed that it had provided 
annual leave or monetary compensation for 7,895 claims. 

* Restored 81,397 hours of annual leave; 

* Paid $1.9 million in monetary compensation; 

* DFAS acknowledged that the above data may be understated because its 
reporting system did not properly identify all Butterbaugh claims. 

Observations: Objective 8: Number of claims denied by DFAS: 

As of June 13, 2008, DFASï¿½s internal Butterbaugh claims report showed 
that it had denied 3,410 claims. 

Reasons for denials: 

* Insufficient documentation to process a claim, such as: 
- missing claim form; 
- missing leave and earnings statements; 
- missing military orders. 

* No evidence of harm; i.e., reservist did not provide documentation 
supporting that they used annual leave or leave without pay for reserve 
duty. 

Our sample did not identify any claims that were improperly denied. 

Observations: Objective 9: Estimated time to resolve a claim: 

DFAS officials stated that it now takes 5 to 10 business days to 
resolve a claim, depending on number of days claimed and available 
documentation. 

Other agency officials used different metrics to determine the amount 
of time required to resolve a claim--for example, the number of hours 
worked to resolve a claim vs. total days lapsed from beginning to end. 

Accordingly, it is difficult to make a meaningful comparison of the 
length of time required to resolve claims. 

Observations: Objective 10: Backlog of claims" 

As of June 13, 2008, DFAS provided documentation showing that it had 12 
outstanding claims. 

During the period of March 2008 ï¿½ May 2008, other agencies reported 
between 0 and 16 outstanding claims. 

Outstanding claims: 
DFAS: 12; 
USDA: 16; 
DHS: 3; 
DOI: 5; 
DOJ: 1; 
VA: 10; 
GSA: 0; 
IRS: 2; 
Total: 49. 

Observations Objective 11: Estimated time to resolve outstanding 
claims: 

DFAS officials estimated it would take 1 to 2 weeks to resolve each 
outstanding claim. 

DFASï¿½s timeliness in the processing of documentation requests and 
claims appears to have improved. 

Recent DFAS data indicates that it receives about 10-20 claims each 
week for processing, most of which are denied due to insufficient 
documentation. 

Observations: Objective 12: Reasonableness of DFAS documentation
requirements: 

DFAS documentation requirements are consistent with MSPB and Federal 
Court of Appeals decisions. 

Among the agencies we contacted, only DFAS, DHSï¿½s Coast Guard, and 
USDAï¿½s Food Safety and Inspection Service require proof of harm. 

Complexities exist in complying with the requirement to prove harm: 

* Harm can be difficult to prove for older periods for which records
may not be available; 

* An August 2007 court decision provided unclear guidance, saying: 
- an employee must prove a loss of annual or other leave to be
entitled to compensation; 
- however, agencies may exercise discretion and provide more
compensation than a claimant is able to prove. 

Observations: Objective 13: Comparison of documentation requirements: 

Agencies require different levels of documentation: 

* All agenciesï¿½ policies require documentation of military duty; 

* Most agencies we contacted require documentation of military leave 
being charged for non-workdays; 
- DFAS, DOJ, GSA, VA, DOI, DHS, and certain components of USDA 
[Footnote 6]; 

* Other agenciesï¿½ policies generally do not require documentation of 
improper charges of military leave: 
- IRS and USDA (except for those identified in the footnote below). 

* DFAS, the Food Safety and Inspection Service within USDA, and the 
Coast Guard within DHS, are the only entities we identified, based on 
the documentation provided to us, whose policies require documentation 
of harm (i.e., loss of annual or other leave due to exhaustion of 
military leave). 

Agency Views: 

DFAS and the other seven federal departments/agencies concurred with 
the facts presented. On the basis of their comments, we made technical 
changes as appropriate. 

[End of enclosure] 

Footnotes: 

[1] 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

[2] 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

[3] Pucilowski v. Dept. of Justice, 498 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

[4] Hernandez v. Dept. of the Air Force, 498 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 
2007). 

[5] Before USERRA was passed in 1994, reservistsï¿½ employment rights 
were protected by the Vietnam Era Veteransï¿½ Readjustment Assistance Act 
of 1974. 

[6] U.S. Forest Service, Food Safety and Inspection Service, and Rural 
Development within USDA require documentation of improperly charged 
military leave. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***