FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 49 0

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 06 63 -RAL-M AP JAC QUES A. DU RR, M.D. ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us ERIC K. SHINSEKI, M.D., Secre ta ry , Depa rtment o f Vet eran s Aff ai rs , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el le e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andHILL, Circu itJu dg es . CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e:Thi s ap pe al bri ng s u s anis su e ari si ng fro m th e st atut ory

reg im e th atgo ve rn s pa rt o f th e em

pl oym en t s y st em

in th e Dep art m en t o f Vet eran s Aff ai rs . The i ss ue is whe th er the two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d l ai d o utat 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 03 ap pl ie s t o a te m po rary, at-wil l VA p hysic ia n app oi nt edun de r 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 5. Th e ap pe ll an t, Dr. J acque s Du rr, co nt en ds th atitdo es , rel y in g o n t he pl ai n l an gu ag e in § 7 40 3. Tak enas l it eral ly as he wou ldha ve us readit , ho wev er, tha t l an gu ag e wou ldlea d t o a n abs ur d re su lt , andth e la w tri es to av oi d abs ur d re su lt s. I. W e b eg in , as c ou rts alwa y s s ho ul d i n m at te rs in vo lv in g s ta tu to ry in te rp ret at io n, wi th th e st atut ory lan gu ag e. A. App oi nt m en ts of p hysic ia ns in th e VA system are m ad e u nd er o ne of t wo st atut ory pro vi si on s. On e o f th em , 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 5( a)(1 )(A), g ov ern s t em po rary ap po in tm en ts , whet he r th ey are fu ll -ti m e o r pa rt- ti m e, an d wh ethe r th ey are wi th or witho utco m

pe ns at io n. Th e o th er p ro vi si on , 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 1( 1) , go ve rn s al l pe rm an en t ap po in tm en ts of p hysic ians , whi ch are s ub ject t o atwo -y ear 1 We use the term “ perma

nent” to desc ribe a

ppointments under § 7401(1) a lthough we 1 rec ognize that during the first two year s of employ ment, a § 7401(1) appointee is not truly perma nent bec ause heor she is still subj ect to the probationary period. Ne verthe less, the term is useful for distinguishing be tween a ppointments under § 7401(1), which may becomeperma

nent if the probationary

period is succ essfully

completed, a

nd those under § 7405, which ar e only temporar y . 2pr ob at io na ry pe rio d s etou t i n 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 03 (b ). Duri ng th attwo -y ear p eri od , a bo ardrev ie ws the reco rdof e ach pro ba ti on ary ph y si ci an , andif i t d et erm in es th at th e p hysic ia n i s n ot“ fu ll y qu al ifi edan d s at is fact ory ,” he or s he is term in at ed . 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 3( b) (2 ) (2 00 7)
. A ph y si ci anwho rece iv es a pe rm an en t ap po in tm en t 2
an d h as su cces sf

ul ly com pl et edth e two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d h as subs ta nt ia ll y m or e job pro te ct io n t ha n o ne who is st il l o n p ro ba ti on . See VA Han db oo k 5 02 1/ 5, PartV, Ch.1 , ¶ 1. B. Dr. Jac qu es Durr , a na ti ve of S wit zerl an d, i s a p hysic ia n anda bo ard
cert ifi edsp eci al is t i n n ep hr ol og y an d i nt ern al m ed ic in e. He fir stbe ga n wo rk in g fo r th e VA Sy st em

in 19 85 inDenv er, Co lo rad o. At tha t t im e h is workwas d on e un de r a g en eral co nt ractbe twee n t he VA andth e Uni ve rs it y of C ol or ad o S ch oo l of Med ic in e, whe re h e was a pr of es so r. Fro m

19 89 to 19 92 , Dr. Durr was a pa rtti m e em pl oyee of th e Den ve r VA Hos pi ta l, an d i n 1 99 2 h e was ap po in te d t o aful l-
Congr ess has re cently

amende d 38 U.S.C. §§ 7403 & 7405, in part to provide for a new 2 cate g ory involving par

t-time nurses. See Ca

reg ivers and V eter ans Omnibus Hea lth Services Ac t of 2010, Pub. L . No. 111-163, § 601, 124 Stat. 1130, 1167–69 (2010). Those amendments a re irrele vant to the issue bef ore us, e x cept that they

have c aused c erta in statutory provisions we ar e discussing to be rew orded in immateria l way s or re numbere d. For example, 38 U.S.C. § 7403(b)( 2) (2007) has bee n renumbe red § 7403(b)(4) , although its content has not chang ed. Be cause the law a s it stood i n 2007 is applicable to this case , wher e nec essar y we includea pare nthetical to 2007 to indicate that we are consideringthe older w ordingand/or numbering of §§ 7403 and 7405. 3ti m e p os it io n wi th th e Bay Pin es VA Healt hc are S y st em in Bay Pi ne s, Fl or id a. Bec au se he was n ota ci ti zen of the Uni te d S ta te s, Du rr was in el ig ib le foran ap po in tm en t as a ph y si ci anun de r 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 1( 1) . See 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 02 (c). He rece iv edin st eada tem po rary app oi nt m en t as a fu ll -ti m e p hysic ian und er 3 8 U.S.C. § 7 40 5( a)(1 )(A). Durr rem ai ne d atem po rary app oi nt ee b etween19 92 an d Nov em be r of 20 06
. InJu ne 20 06 Dr. Durr b ecame a Unit edSta te s ci ti zen , m ak in g h im eli gi bl e fo r a § 74 01 (1 ) ap po in tm en t as a ph y si ci an . ThatAug us t, the Ch ie f of Med ic in e at Bay Pine s co m

pl et eda “ Reque stforPers on ne l Act io n” form , reque st in g t ha t Durr’s em

pl oym en t s ta tu s b e co nv ert edfro m a § 7 40 5 t em

po rary app oi nt m en t t o a pe rm an en t ap po in tm en t u nd er § 74 01 (1 ). Thatreque stledto a m eet in g o n Nov em be r 1, 2 00 6, o f th e Bay Pin es “ Pro fes si on al Sta nd ard s B oa rd ,” whi ch
reco m m en de d c on ve rti ng Durr ’s em pl oym en t s ta tu s “ to [a] ful l-t im e p erm an en t ap po in tm en t u nd er 3 8 U.S.C. [§ ] 74 01 (1 ).” The Dire ct orof B ay Pin es si gn edoff
on th e rec omm en da ti on th e fo ll owi ng da y , Nov em be r 2, 2 00 6, an d Hu m an Res ou rce o ffi cers in th e VA form al ly app ro ve d t he “ Reque stforPers on ne l Acti on ” fo rm

on Nov em

be r 13 , 20 06 . Thatform

co nt ai ns a hand writ te n n ot e th at

4sp eci fie s: “ App oi nt m en t i s s ub ject t o t wo years p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d b eg in ni ng 11
- 12 -0 6,” an d i t l is ts “ 11 -1 2- 06 ” as it s “ Effect iv e Dat e.” 3 InOcto be r 20 08 Durrrece iv edhi s fi rs t “ un sa ti sf act ory ” o ve ral l ev al ua ti on . Tha t ev al ua ti on pro m

pt edth e ch ie f of

st aff a ndth e ch ie f of

m ed ic in e atBay Pi ne s to in it ia te a “ su m

m ary rev ie w” pr oc edur e, whi ch is us edto ev al ua te §7 40 1( 1) ap po in te es whi le th ey

are co m pl et in g t he pro ba ti on ary pe rio d re qu ire d u nd er § 74 03 (b )(1 ). The rev ie w pro cedur e en de d unh ap pi ly for Du rr — t he VA form al ly te rm in at edhi m

effe ct iv e Nov em

be r 7, 2 00 8. Dr. Durrap pe al edhi s t erm in at io n t o aVA Disc ip li na ry App eal s B oa rd
. The Bo ardco nc lu de d, h owe ve r, th atitlac ke d ju ris di ct io n o ve r th e ap pe al , reas on in g t ha t b ecau se Durr was s ti ll a pr ob at io na ry

em pl oyee whe n h e was te rm in at ed , he h adno rig htto ap pe al
. The Bo ardno te d i n i ts de ci si on th atDurr ’s 4 pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d h adst art edon Nov em be r 12 , 20 06 , bu t tha t h is term in at io n was effe ct iv e Nov em

be r 7, 2 00 8, a f

ew da y s s hy of two y ears . The pa rties dispute at pre cisely

which stag e in this chain of bur eauc ratic procedur e and 3 paper work Dur r’s § 7401(1) appointment beca me ef fec tive. We discuss that issue in P art IV below. The re levant cha

pter of VA rules g overningDisciplinary Appea ls Boar ds and the interna l 4 appea ls process state s: “This chapte r applies to De partment of V eter ans Aff airs (VA) e mployees holding a full-time, perma

nent appointment under

38 U.S.C. 7401(1) who have satisfac torily completed the pr obationary period re quired by

38 U.S.C. 7403(b).” VAHandbook 5021/5, Part V, Ch.1, ¶ 1. 5Dr. Durrth enfil edth is act io n i n d is tri ctco urt, s eek in g ju di ci al rev ie w of t he

Dis ci pl in ary App eal s B oa rd ’s dec is io n a nda writof m an da m us ord eri ng th e VA to pr ov id e h im

with a n app eal to , anda he ari ng be fo re, the Bo ard . He di d n otco nt es t th e Bo ard ’s un de rs ta nd in g tha t p ro ba ti on ary ap po in te es di d n otha ve an y rig htof ap pe al to it , bu t h e co nt en de d t ha t the Bo ardha d e rredin de te rm in in g t ha t h e was st il l a p ro ba ti on ary em

pl oyee at t he ti m e o f hi s d is ch arg e, an d s ho ul d i ns te adha ve fo un d tha t h e h adsat is fie d t he pro ba ti on ary pe rio d o f §7 40 3( b) (1 ) du rin g h is y ears of servi ce as a te m

po rary em

pl oyee un de r § 7 40 5( a)(1 )(A). If h e was rig htab ou t th at , th e Dis ci pl in ary App eal s B oa rdha d wro ng ly det erm in edth atitlac ke d juri sd ic ti on ov er h is ap pe al . The d is tri ctco urt re jecte d Du rr’s co nt en ti on th athe ha d c om pl et edhi s t wo- y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d, d en ie d h is m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d i ns te adgra nt edsu m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e VA. Inhi s ap pe al to us Dr. Durr a ga in co nt en ds th atdu rin g h is fou rte eny ears of
se rv ic e as a te m

po rary app oi nt ee u nd er § 74 05 (a)( 1) (A) h e sa ti sf ie d the two -y ear pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d re qu ire d b y

§ 7 40 3( b) (1 ). In t he alt ern at iv e, he arg ue s tha t ev enif tha t p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d d idno t b eg in to run un ti l h is 20 06 ap po in tm en t as a p erm an en t p hysic ia n u nd er § 74 01 (1 ), th atap po in tm en t o ccurredan d t he run ni ng of th e p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d b eg anon Nov em be r 2, 2 00 6. Th atis th e d at e whe n t he Dire ct orof B ay

Pin es ap pr ov edth e rec omm en da ti onof t he Pro fes si on al Sta nd ard s 6Bo ardto co nv ertDurr ’s st atus to a § 7 40 1( 1) ap po in tm en t. The VA di sa gr ees ,

as se rti ng th atth e p erm an en t ap po in tm en t d idno t b eco m e eff ect iv e an d t he pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d t ha t ac co m

pa ni es itdi d n otst artrun ni ng un ti l No ve m be r 12 , 20 06 , whi ch is th e d at e sp eci fie d o n t he VA’ s “ Reque stforPers on ne l Act io n” fo rm . If Du rr i s co rrec t ab ou t the effe ct iv e d at e o f th e ap po in tm en t, h is pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d e nd edonNov em

be r 2, 2 00 8, fi ve da y s b efo re h is term in at io n be cam e eff

ect iv e; if t he VA is c orrect , itdi d n oten d b efo re h e was term in at edon Nov em be r 7, 2 00 8. II. W e rev ie w de n ov o t he gra ntof s umm ary jud gm en t, Equi ty Inv . Partne rs , LP v. Len z, 59 4 F .3d13 38 , 13 42 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), ap pl y in g t he same sub st an ti ve la w as t he di st ric t co urt. Bec au se Durr ’s com pl ai ntsee ks jud ic ia l re vi ew of th e de ci si on of aVA Disc ip li na ry App eal s B oard , we, li ke th e d is tri ctco urt, ar e li m it edinou r rev ie w by 38 U.S.C. § 7 46 2( f). Tha t s ub se ct io n p ro vi de s t ha t a co urt m ay setasi de th e jud gm en t o f a Dis ci pl in ary App eal s B oa rdon ly if it de te rm in es th e jud gm en t i s “ arb it rary, capri ci ou s, an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, o r ot he rwis e n otin acco rd an ce wi th law; ob ta in edwitho utpro cedur es requi redby la w, rul e, orreg ul at io n h av in g b een fol lo wed ; o r un supp orte d b y subs ta nt ia l
ev id en ce.” 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 62 (f)(2 )(A)– (C). 7III. A. Dr. Durr ’s pri m ary arg um en t ce nt ers on th e p la in lan gu ag e o f 38 U.S.C. § 74 03 , whi ch set s o uta two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d fo r ph y si ci an s an d o th er ty pe s of VA heal th care pro fes si on al s. Th atst atut e p ro vi de s i n re le va ntpa rt: (a)( 1) App oi nt m en ts un de r th is ch ap te r of he al th -car e p ro fes si on al s t o who m th is sec ti on ap pl ie s m ay

be m ad e o nl y

aft er qua li fic at io ns ha ve be ensat is fact or il y

est ab li sh edin acco rd an ce wi th reg ul at io ns pr es cri be d b y

th e Sec ret ary, witho utreg ardto civ il -s erv ic e requi rem en ts . (2 ) Thi s s ect io n app li es to th e fo ll owi ng pe rs on s ap po in te d und er thi s ch ap te r: (A) Ph y si ci an s. * * * (b )(1 ) App oi nt m en ts de sc rib edin subs ect io n (a ) sh al l b e fo r a pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d o f two y ears . 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 3 (2 00 7) . Durr l ay s p art ic ul ar s tre ss onth e p hr as e “ un de r th is ch ap te r,” arg ui ng th atth e p hr as e o bv io us ly refers to Tit le 38 , Chapt er 7 4, an d h e po in ts ou t tha t b ot h § § 7 40 1 a nd74 05 are p artof C hapt er 7 4. Onth atfou nd at io n res ts Durr ’s arg um en t tha t und er the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 3, the pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d app li es to all ap po in tm en ts of p hysic ia ns un de r Ch ap te r 74 , § 874 05 (a)( 1) (A) te m po rary app oi nt m en ts as we ll as § 74 01 (1 ) pe rm an en t o ne s. It fo ll ows , Durr i ns is ts , th athi s 1 4 years o f se rv ic e b etween19 92 an d 2 00 6 a s a te m po rary app oi nt ee s at is fie d § 74 03 ’s pro ba ti on ary pe rio d b ecau se he was s ub ject to , andful ly serv edou t, the two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d dur in g t ho se y ears . So, th e arg um en t g oe s, wh enDurrbe cam e a Un it edSta te s ci ti zen in 20 06 an d
rece iv edhi s § 74 01 (1 ) pe rm an en t ap po in tm en t tha t No ve m be r, he was n otsubjec t to a ne w pro ba ti on ary pe rio d b utau to m at ic al ly became a perm an en t em pl oyee; h is two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d h av in g e nd edtwel ve y ears be fo re. If al l o f th atis
co rrec t, the n t he VA’ s Di sc ip li na ry App eal s B oa rdwas wro ng to co nc lu de th atit la ck edjuri sd ic ti on ov er h is ap pe al on th e g ro un d tha t h e h adno t co m pl et edhi s pr ob at io na ry

pe rio d a t the ti m e h e was letgo . B. The VA str es se s t ha t Dr. Du rr’s in te rp ret at io n o f § 7 40 3 i s i nc on si st en t wi th it s o wn l on gs ta nd in g a dm in is tra ti ve in te rp ret at io n o f th e st atut ory reg im e go ve rn in g i ts pe rs on ne l s y st em . The VA ha s a c le ar, es tabl is he d p ol ic y of n ot ap pl y in g t he pro ba ti on ary pe rio d s etou t i n § 74 03 (b )(1 ) to tem po rary ap po in tm en ts un de r § 7 40 5, an d fo r th atreas on do es no t cr ed ittem po rary serv ic e un de r § 7 40 5 t owardth e two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d re qu ire d o f anem pl oyee who is gi ve n ape rm an en t ap po in tm en t u nd er § 74 01 (1 ). 9Tha t VA p ol ic y is no t, h owe ve r, la idou t i n fo rm al reg ul at io ns . It i s, in st ead , refl ect edin va rio us pe rs on ne l h an db oo ks . For e xa m pl e, whi le th e ch ap te r of VA Handbo ok50 21 /6 ti tl ed“ Tit le 38 Pro ba ti on ary Em pl oyees” st at es th atth e cat eg ory of “ pr ob at io na ry

em pl oyees” in cl ud es “ em

pl oyees app oi nt edun de r 38 U.S.C. [§ ] 74 01 (1 ), i.e., p hysic ia ns ,” itals o m ak es cle ar tha t “ [t]hi s ch ap te r do es no t ap pl y to em pl oyees app oi nt edun de r . . . 38 U.S.C . [§] 74 05 .” VA Handbo ok 50 21 /6 , PartIII, Ch . 1, ¶ 1
. Lik ewis e, whe n VA Han db oo k 5 00 5/ 7 d es cri be s t he
se rv ic e th atcanbe cred it edto wardco m pl et io n o f th e p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d, i t in cl ud es “ [c]on ti nu ou s s erv ic e in anap po in tm en t u nd er 3 8 U.S.C. [§ §] 74 01 (1 ) or 73 06 ,” bu t i t d oe s n otin cl ud e se rv ic e in anap po in tm en t u nd er § 74 05 . See VA Han db oo k 5 00 5/ 7, Pa rt I I, Ch . 3, § F, ¶ 3( d)
. The VA argu es th atit s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e st atut ory fram ewo rk , as refl ect edin th os e h an db oo ks , is en ti tl edto de fere nc e u nd er Ch ev ro n, U.S.A., Inc
. v. Natur al Res ou rces Defen se Co un se l, In c., 46 7 U.S. 8 37 , 84 3– 44 , 10 4 S .Ct. 27 78 , 27 82 (19 84 ). Alt ern at iv el y , itarg ue s tha t i f we fi ndCh ev ro n d efer en ce d oe s no t ap pl y , it s i nt erp ret at io n i s s ti ll en ti tl edto “ res pe ct ” und er Sk id m or e v . Swift , 32 3 U.S. 1 34 , 14 0, 6 5 S .Ct. 1 61 , 16 4 (1 94 4) (“ W e co ns id er tha t the rul in gs , in te rp ret at io ns an d o pi ni on s o f th e Adm in is tra to r un de r th is Act, wh il e n ot co nt ro ll in g upo n t he co urts by reaso n o f th ei r au th or it y , do co ns ti tu te a bo dy of 10ex pe rie nc e an d i nf orm edjud gm en t t o wh ic h c ou rts an d l it ig an ts m ay pro pe rly
res ort fo r gu id an ce.”) InCh ris te ns env. Harr is Co un ty, 52 9 U.S. 5 76 , 58 7, 1 20 S.Ct . 16 65 , 16 62 (2 00 0) , th e Supr em e Co urt s ta te d t ha t o rd in ari ly “po li cy st at em en ts , age nc y m anua ls , anden fo rcem en t g ui de li ne s, al l o f whi ch lac k t he for ce o f la w [] do no t warra ntCh ev ro n- st y le de fere nc e.” Ch ris te ns en , ho wev er, was ba se d i n p arton th e factth atth e ag en cy

op in io n l et te r in th atcas e was no t the res ul t o f “ a fo rm al ad jud ic at io n o r no ti ce-a nd -co m m en t ru le m ak in g.” Id., 1 20 S.Ct . at 1 66 2. Re lying
on bo th th atde ci si on an d Un it edSta te s v . MeadCo rp ., 53 3 U.S. 2 18 , 22 9– 30 , 12 1 S.Ct . 21 64 , 21 72 –7 3 (2 00 1) , th is Cir cu itha s ap pl ie d C he vr on lev el de fere nc e to an ag en cy ha ndbo okwhen Co ng res s h as au th or iz edanag en cy to “ is su e reg ul at io ns th atha ve th e fo rce o f law” an d t he ag en cy ’s han db oo k h as be ensubjec t t o n ot ic ean d- co m m en t ru le m ak in g, M ic co su ke e Trib e o f In di an s o f Fl a. v. Un it edSta te s, 56 6 F .3d12 57 , 12 73 (20 09 ). Co ng res s h as au th or iz edth e VA to is su e reg ul at io ns pre sc rib in g “ th e h ou rs an d c on di ti on s o f em

pl oym en t” of i ts he al th care em pl oyees, i nc lu di ng ph y si ci an s. 38 U.S.C. § 7 42 1. An d the parts of Ha ndbo ok50 21 /6 th atwe have qu ot ed , in cl ud in g t he st at em en t tha t the ch ap te r de sc rib in g p ro ba ti on ary em pl oyees “ do es no t ap pl y to em pl oyees app oi nt edun de r . . . 38 U.S.C . [§] 74 05 ,” was publ is he d i n 11th e Fed eral Reg is te r. See VA Dir ect iv e an d Han db oo k 5 02 1, 7 1 F ed . Reg . 26 15 ,

26 16 (Ja n. 1 7, 2 00 6) . Thatpubl ic at io n, h owe ve r, was i n t he co nt ex t o f se ek in g no ti ce an d c omm en t o n p ro po se d re vi si on s t o t he Handbo okth atres ul te d fr om th e in cl us io n o f ch iro pr act or s as pe rm an en t fu ll -ti m e em pl oyees u nd er 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 01 (1 ). W e al so no te th aton e o f ou r si st er ci rcu it s h as co nc lu de d t ha t o nl y Sk id m or e d efer en ce was owedto an ot he r of th e VA’ s p ers on ne l h an db oo ks , Han db oo k 5 11 1. In James v. Vo n Zem en sz ky, 284 F.3d13 10 (Fed . Cir . 20 02 ), th e Co urt o bs erv ed : [The VA] ha s n otis su eda co m pr eh en si ve setof r eg ul at io ns im pl em en ti ng th e VHA per so nn el pro vi si on s i n t it le 38 . Ins te ad , [th e VA] ha s s etforth it s i nt erp ret at io n o f th e ti tl e 3 8 p ers on ne l p ro vi si on s in th e fo rm

of m anua ls , di rect iv es , andha ndbo ok s s uc h a s Di rect iv e 51 11 an d Han db oo k 5 11 1. Be cau se Dire ct iv e 5 11 1 a ndHandbo ok 51 11 are ak in to in te rp ret at io ns co nt ai ne d i n p ol ic y st at em en ts , ag en cy m anua ls , anden fo rcem en t g ui de li ne s, the y are n oten ti tl edto Ch ev ro n d efer en ce. In st ead , th ey are ac co rd eda le ss er d eg ree o f de fere nc e p ro po rti on al to [th ei r] powe r to pe rs ua de
. Id . at 1 31 8– 19 (la stalt erat io n i n o rig in al ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. W e n eedno t d eci de whet he r th e p art s o f th e VA’ s p ers on ne l h an db oo ks th at we are c on si de rin g are en ti tl edto ful l Ch ev ro n d efer en ce o r si m pl y to Sk id m or e de fere nc e b ecau se th e d iff eren ce b etweenth os e two m eas ur es of d efer en ce m ak es no di ffer en ce t o t he ou tc om e in th is cas e. Fo r th atreas on , we wil l as su m e th at on ly Skid m or e d efer en ce i s due . Und er tha t as su m pt io n, wh il e th e sp eci fic 12ha ndbo okpro vi si on s we are co ns id eri ng he re ar e “ no t co nt ro ll in g . . . by reaso n o f

th ei r au th or it y ,” th ey

“ do co ns ti tu te a bo dy of ex pe rie nc e an d i nf orm edjud gm en t to whi chco urts an d l it ig an ts m ay pro pe rly reso rt f

orgu id an ce.” Sk id m or e, 32 3 U.S. at 1 40 , 65 S.Ct . at 1 64
. C. Inm ak in g h is arg um en t ab ou t the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 3, Dr. Durr rel ie s ch ie fly onth e m an y de ci si on s fr om

th is Co urt wh ere we h av e b eg un an d e nd edou r st atut ory

co ns tru ct io n wi th jus t tha t, the pl ai n l an gu ag e. Fo r ex am pl e, in CBS In c. v. Pr im eTim e 2 4 J oi ntVentur e, 24 5 F .3d12 17 (11 th Cir
. 20 01 ), we su m

m ari zed : Thi s C ou rt h as rep eat ed ly stat edth at“ [w]e beg in ou r co ns tru ct io n o f [a s ta tu to ry

pro vi si on ] whe re co urts sh ou ldalwa y s b eg in th e p ro ces s of leg is la ti ve in te rp ret at io n, an d wh ere t he y oft ensh ou lden d i t as well , whi ch is with t he word s o f th e st atut ory pro vi si on .” W e h av e al so sai d ju stas f

reque nt ly tha t “ [w]henth e im po rt o f wor ds Co ng res s ha s u se d i s cl ear . . . we ne edno t re so rt t o l eg is la ti ve hi st ory , andwe cert ai nl y sh ou ldno t d o s o t o u nd erm in e th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut ory lan gu ag e.” Inothe r wor ds , “ [w]henth e wor ds of ast atut e are u na m bi gu ou s, the n, thi s fi rs t ca no n [o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n] is al so th e la st : jud ic ia l i nqui ry is co m pl et e.” The rul e is th at“we m us t pr es um e th atCo ng res s s ai d wh atitm ean t an d m ean t wh atitsai d.” Id . at 1 22 2 (a lt erat io ns inori gi na l) ( ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. W e fu ll y st an d b y th atde ci si on , bu t i n i t we al so m ad e cl ear t ha t “ co urts
m ay reac h re su lt s i nc on si st en t wi th th e p la in m ean in g o f a s ta tu te ‘ if g iv in g t he 13wor ds of ast atut e th ei r pl ai n andord in ary m ean in g p ro du ces a res ul t tha t i s n ot

jus t u nwi se bu t i s cl earl y ab su rd .’ ” Id . at 1 22 8 (quo ti ng Merr it t v . Dil la rdPap er Co ., 12 0 F .3d11 81 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 19 97 )). The rat io na le forth atex cep ti on is th is : “ Bec au se th e le gi sl atur e is pre su m edto actwith s en si bl e an d re as on ab le pu rp os e, a s ta tu te sh ou ld , if atall po ss ib le , be r eadso as t o a vo idanun jus t o r ab su rdco nc lu si on .” Inre Graupn er, 5 37 F.3d12 95 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so Mi ed em a v . Maytag Co rp ., 45 0 F .3d13 22 , 13 26 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ap pl y in g t he “ ve ne rab le ” p rin ci pl e th at“ st atut ory lan gu ag e sh ou ldno t b e ap pl ie d l it eral ly if do in g s o wo ul d p ro du ce an ab su rdres ul t” (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) ). Mo reo ve r, in co ns tru in g ast atut e, “ [w]e do no t l oo k a t o ne wordor t erm in is ol at io n, b utin st eadwe lo okto th e en ti re s ta tu to ry co nt ex t.” Un it edSta te s v . DBB, In c., 18 0 F .3d12 77 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . McLem or e, 28 F.3d11 60 , 11 62 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). See al so In r e In t’l Adm in
. Serv s. In c., 40 8 F .3d68 9, 7 07 n.7 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (“ It i s a f un da m en ta l ca no n o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n tha t the word s o f a s ta tu te m us t b e rea d i n t he ir c on te xtan d with avi ew to th ei r pl ace i n the ov eral l s ta tu to ry sch em e.” (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ). Noton ly tha t, b ut“ [i]n e xp ou nd in g ast atut e, we m us t n otbe gu id edby a si ng le sen te nc e o r m em be r of a se nt en ce, b utlo okto th e p ro vi si on s o f th e who le

14la w, andto it s p ol ic y .” Co lo rte x v . Ric ha rd so n, 1 9 F .3d13 71 , 13 75 (11 th Cir
.

19 94 ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. W e are co nv in cedth atth is cas e p res en ts on e o f th e rar e si tu at io ns wher e th e pl ai n l an gu ag e o f a s ta tu te , at l eas t wh ere re adin is ol at io n, yield s a r es ul t tha t i s bo th ab su rdan d c om

pl et el y at o dd s wi th th e en ti re s ta tu to ry co nt ex t i n wh ic h t he la ng ua ge is fou nd . “ [U]nde r th is ch ap te r,” as th atph ras e is us edin 38 U.S.C. § 74 03 (a)( 1) an d (a )(2 ), can no t p os si bl y referto ap po in tm en ts un de r 38 U.S.C. § 74 05 , eve n t ho ug h § 74 05 is part o f th e sa m e ch ap te r. Und er the st atut e, a p erm an en t em pl oyee who is st il l wi th inth e p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d m ay

be letgo on ly if a su m

m ary rev ie w bo ardfin ds th atth e p ers on “ is no t fu ll y qu al ifi edan d s at is fact ory .” 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 3( b) (2 ) (2 00 7) . By co nt ras t, a te m po rary, at-wil l em

pl oyee do es no t h av e ev enth atm uc h s ta tu to ry

pro te ct io n a nd
m ay be letgo witho utso m

uc h a s a s umm ary pr oc eed in g a ndev enif h e is “ fu ll y qu al ifi edan d s at is fact ory .” See VA Han db oo k 5 02 1/ 3, Pa rt VI, ¶ 1 5. In so far a s th e VA st atut es are co nc ern ed , bec au se a te m po rary em

pl oyee se rv es at wi ll , he
m ay be letgo fora go odreas on , a ba d re as on , or n o re as on at a ll
. It wo ul d b e 5
We say “insofar as the VAstatutes are conce rned” beca use other statutes provide that no 5 employee ma

y be discriminated a g ainst beca use of r ace , ethnicity , sex, age , protec ted ac tivity , and so on. See Ag e Discrimination in Employ ment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623; Title VI Iof the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a ), 2000e- 3. We do not, however , have a ny of those ty pes of c laims before us in this proceeding
. 15ox ym or on ic an d abs ur d t o c on cl ud e th ata te m po rary, at-wil l em

pl oyee ha s t he
sa m e p ro te ct io ns ag ai ns t d is ch arg e dur in g h is term of e m pl oym en t as a pe rm an en t em pl oyee who is no t s erv in g a t wi ll bu t i s i ns te adon pro ba ti on . Noton ly tha t, b ut§ 7 40 5 c on te m pl at es th atm os t t em

po rary ful l-t im e ap po in tm en ts wil l b e fo r a p eri odof 9 0 d ay s o r le ss , un le ss th e “ Und er Se cret ary fo r Heal th fin ds th atcir cu m st an ces ren de r itim pr act ic ab le to ob ta in th e n eces sa ry se rv ic es ” b y

way of § 74 01 ap po in tm en ts . 38 U.S.C. § 7 40 5( c)(1 ). Und er Dr. Durr’s co ns tru ct io n o f th e st atut e, ho wev er, i n wh ic h t he pro ba ti on ary pe rio d
wou ldap pl y

to all em pl oyees, the va stm ajor it y of t em po rary em

pl oyees wo ul d le av e b efo re co m

pl et in g a ny but a s m al l fr act io n o f th e p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d. His in te rp ret at io n wo ul d yiel d o th er an om al ou s re su lt s. Sec ti on74 05 ap pl ie s n oton ly to t em

po rary ful l-t im e ap po in tm en ts bu t al so to pa rt- ti m e an d witho utco m

pe ns at io n app oi ntm en ts . See 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 05 (a)( 1) . In Du rr’s v ie w, a p hysic ia n wh o c am e in witho utpa y foron e h ou r a weekfortwo y ears an d t he n rece iv edanap po in tm en t und er § 74 01 (1 ) to a fu ll -ti m e p os it io n wo ul d
au to m at ic al ly hav e co m

pl et edth e n eces sa ry

pro ba ti on ary pe rio d. Yet , th e who le po in t o f a p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d i s t o t es t o utwhet he r a p ers on is su it ab le fora pe rm an en t p os it io n. Th e VA wou ldhave li tt le op po rtu ni ty andles s m ot iv at io n t o

16de te rm in e whe th er a t em po rary, part -ti m e p ers on (who m ig htor m ig htno t b e co m pe ns at ed ) was su it ab le fora fu ll -ti m e, pe rm an en t p os it io n. W e co nc lu de , con si st en t wi th th e VA’ s l on gs ta nd in g i nt erp ret iv e fra m ewo rk to whi chwe are ac co rd in g S ki dm or e d efer en ce, tha t the pro ba ti on ary pe rio d requi redby 38 U.S.C. § 74 03 (b )(1 ) ap pl ie s o nl y to pe rm an en t ap po in tm en ts m ad e un de r § 7 40 1( 1)
. IV. Dr. Durr ’s alt ern at iv e arg um en t h as to do with wh enhe was app oi nt edto th e pe rm an en t p os it io n, wh ic h d et erm in es when th e p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d a tt ach edto th atap po in tm en t b eg anto run . He arg ue s t ha t h e was ap po in te d t o t he pe rm an en t po si ti onan d t he pro ba ti on ary pe rio d fo r itbe ga n t o ru n o n No ve m be r 2, 2 00 6, in st eadof o n No ve m

be r 12 , 20 06 . Thatwou ldm ak e al l the di ffer en ce, b ecau se it
wou ldm ean th athe ha d c om pl et edth e two -y ear p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d o n No ve m be r 2, 2 00 8, fi ve da y s b efo re h is term in at io n b ecame effect iv e o n No ve m be r 7, 2 00 8. As a re su lt , th e VA’ s Di sc ip li na ry App eal s B oa rdwou ldha ve juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er h is ap pe al of t he term in at io n d eci si on be cau se he was n o l on ge r a pr ob at io na ry

em pl oyee at t he ti m e h e was term in at ed
. To s up po rt t hi s ar gu m en t Dr. Du rr rel ie s o n t he factth atonNov em be r 2, 20 06 , th e Dir ect orof B ay Pin es ap pr ov edth e Pro fes si on al Sta nd ard s B oa rd ’s

17reco m

m en da ti on th athi s emplo ym en t s ta tu s b e co nv ert edto a fu ll -ti m e p erm an en t ap po in tm en t u nd er 3 8 U.S.C. § 74 01 (1 ). Inop po si ti on , th e VA po in ts to two
ex hi bi ts in th e rec or d. On e is th e actua l re co rdof t he Bay Pi ne s Pr of es si on al St an da rd s B oard ’s m eet in g o n No ve m be r 1, 2 00 6. The ot he r do cu m en t i s a f orm en ti tl ed“ Reque stforPers on ne l Act io n,” whi chev id en tl y was u se d t o app ro ve or effe ctth e ap pr ov al of t he co nv ers io n o f Durr’s em pl oym en t s ta tu s t o a§7 40 1( 1) ap po in tm en t. Tha t fo rm

is si gn edby thre e d iff

eren t VA h um anres ou rce o ffi cers , who da te d t he ir s ig na tu res “ 11 -1 3- 06 .” It a ls o c on ta in s a h an dwr it te n n ot e in th e

“ Rem ark s” sec ti on th atst at es : “ App oi nt m en t i s s ub ject t o t wo years p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d b eg in ni ng 11 -1 2- 06 .” Fi na ll y , th e fo rm li st s “ 11 -1 2- 06 ” as it s “ Effect iv e Date .” 6 Bas edon th os e two do cu m en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ th e VA ha d n otco m

pl et edco nv ers io n o f [Dr. Durr’s] status fro m tem po rary to p erm an en t
The VApoints out that the diffe renc e betwe en the date of the signature s and the date that 6 Durr’ s probationar

y period be g an is consistent with its own internal reg ulations. November 13, 2006, was a

Monday , but VA Handbook 5005/12 state s: “When an appointee is to enter on duty on Monday , the appointment will be ef fec tive on the pre cedingSunday provided the e mploy ee is available for duty

on that day .” VA H andbook 5005/12, Part I I , Ch. 3, § A, ¶ 3(n)( 1). Moreove r, the VAarg

ues that its own regulations specify that appointments are made eff ective only

afte r appr oval by

“appointingoffice rs,” who a re “ Responsible Human Resourc e Manag ement Of

fice r[s] .” I d. at Part I I , Ch. 3, § A, ¶ 2(a ). In other wor ds, under the VA’s regulations, the mere f

act that the D irec tor of B ay Pines approved the Professional Standards Boa rd’s re commendation on Nove mber 2, 2006, did not eff ect the c onversion of D r. Durr ’s employ ment status from a § 7405( a)( 1)(A) appointment to a § 7401(1) a ppointment. See id. 18un ti l No ve m be r 12 , 20 06 , as n ot edon th e VA’ s fo rm .” Durr co nt en ds th atth e di st ric t co urt was wron g abo utth at . He als o a rg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e th athe di d
no t h av e a ch an ce ei th er t o re vi ew orco nduc t d is co ve ry ab ou t the Pers on ne l Acti on form , whi chli st s i ts effe ct iv e d at e as “ 11 -1 2- 06 ” an d c on ta in s t he ha nd writ te n n ot e sp eci fy in g t ha t Du rr’s p ro ba ti on ary pe rio d i s t o ru n fr om Nov em be r 12 , 20 06 . He als o ra is es sev eral arg um en ts ab ou t tha t fo rm ’s
au th en ti ci ty. Bu t the se ob jecti on s an d a rg um en ts co m e to o l at e. Afte r th e VA subm it te d t he Reque stforPers on ne l Act io n fo rm as a n e xh ib it in supp ort o f it s o pp os it io n t o Dr. Du rr’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, h e d idno t as k t he di st ric t co urt fo r anop po rtu ni ty to co nduc t d is co ve ry as t o authe nt ic it y

or an yth in g e ls e. Nor d idhe arg ue th atform sh ou ldno t b e co ns id eredun ti l i t was au th en ti cat ed . Nor d idhe askth e d is tri ctco urt t o s ta y it s ru li ng on su m

m ary jud gm en t u nt il he co ul d d is co ve r an d s ub m itev id en ce tha t m ig htsu gg es t the form was no t au th en ti c. As a re su lt , Durr h as no t p res erv edan y factua l d is pu te as t o th atform ’s aut he nt ic it y . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n co ns id eri ng th e fo rm , andgi ve n t he form an d t he ot he r ex hi bi t, the co urt co rrec tl y reject edDurr ’s alt ern at iv e th eo ry . AFFIRMED.

19