Decision 

Hatter of: Thomas L. Wild 

File: B-240781 

Date: February 5, 1991 

DECISICN 

The issue here is what constitutes an administrative error so 

that an agency can grant an employee a retroactive withingrade increase. 

On March 6, 1990, the Denver Regional Office, Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) submitted a Standard 

Form 52, Request for Personnel Action, effecting a QualityStep Increase (QSI) for Thomas L.'Wild..'The request was 

submitted to-the local Regional Personnel Office, Department ._ 

of Labor, with a proposed effective date of March 25, 1990. 

Thus, Mr. Wild's QSI was approved effective that date. 

The agency states that this action was in error since 

Mr. Wild's supervisor intended that the effective date of the 

QSI correspond with his next within-grade increase due 

April 22, 1990. If this had been done Mr. Wild would have 

received two step increases instead of one. Instead Mr. Wild 

received an increase to GS-12, step 7, on March 25, 1990, and 

is not entitled to an increase to step 8 until April 1991. 

The Regional Administrator believes that the mistake 

constitutes an administrative error, and that there is no 

legal or regulatory prohibition against correcting the 

effective date on the personnel action. However, the Regional 

Personnel Office asserts that there was no administrative 

error since it processed the action as requested and it met 

all legal and regulatory requirements. 

We agree with the Regional Personnel Office that the mistake 

made here does not constitute an administrative error that 

would justify a retroactive grant of an administrative step 

increase to Mr. Wild at this time. The effective date of a 

change in salary resulting from administrative action is the 

date action is taken by the administrative officer vested with 

necessary authority or a subsequent date specifically fixed by 

him. 21 COmp. Gen. 95 (1941). 
Thus, we held in Carolyn Whitlock, 58 Comp. Gen. 290 (1979), 

that an employee was not entitled to a retroactive QSI where 

the agency erroneously filed a supervisor's insufficiently 

documented recommendation of a QSI which caused a subsequent 

delay. The employee did not have a vested right pursuant to 

statute or regulation to a QSI until the appropriate agency 

official approved the recommendation. Thus, it could not be 

said that there was an unjustified or unwarranted personnel 

action. See also Richard S. McMains, B-239515, Sept. 20, 

1990. - - 

The Regional Personnel Office states that the Standard Form 52 

pertaining to Mr. Wild was reviewed and timely processed in 

accordance with its guidance and instructions for completion 

of the form. The document contained a requested effective 

date of March 25, 

official. 

1990, and was signed by the authorizing 

After the document was processed, Mr. Wild began to 

receive salary at the GS-12, step 7 level. Thus, it cannot be 

said that there was an unjustified or unwarranted personnel 

action since Mr. Wild's promotion to the next step of his 

grade was carried out as requested and approved. See Doris 

Brisset, B-207129, Aug. 26, 1982. PP 

Accordingly, the agency may not retroactively correct the 

effective date of Mr. Wild's Quality-Step Increase. 

. . I‘ 

2 B-240781