Opinion ID: 698292
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Same Agency

Text: 67 The Government argues that Gonji's prior service with the DoD Postal Service cannot be credited toward his one year trial period with the DoD Dependents Schools because military departments are separate agencies for purposes related to appointment and employment of civilian employees, citing Francis v. Department of the Navy, 53 MSPR 545 (1992). Gonji counters that both the DoD Postal Service and the DoD Dependents Schools are part of the same agency and that comparisons with military departments have no relevance. 68 In Francis, the Board held that the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy are not part of the same agency for purposes of crediting prior service toward completion of a probationary period. The petitioner had argued that the Army and the Navy should be considered the same agency because they are both part of the Department of Defense. The Board rejected this argument and relied on the organizational history of the Department of Defense to conclude that the military departments are to be regarded as separate agencies for purposes related to the appointment and employment of civilian personnel. Id. at 550. The Board found that the organizational history of the Department of Defense indicates that the military service departments were intended to function independently with respect to personnel matters. The Board analyzed the National Security Act Amendments of 1949, Pub.L. No. 81-216, 63 Stat. 578, which redesignated the executive departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force as military departments, and concluded that the statutory provisions and the legislative history of the Act demonstrate that Congress intended to allow the independent appointing authority and other personnel functions of the military departments to continue as if they remained as separate executive agencies. The Board particularly relied on the section of the Act that authorized the Secretary of Defense to appoint civilian personnel necessary for the performance of the Department of Defense but explicitly excluded the functions of the three military departments from this appointment authority. Id. Sec. 6(b), 63 Stat. at 581; see Francis, 53 MSPR at 550. 12 69 Although Francis is helpful for our analysis, it does not resolve the dispute at hand because the record before us does not show that Gonji moved from one military department to another as had Ms. Francis. Gonji served under two components of the Department of Defense, the Postal Service and the Dependents Schools. Although the Government asserts that Gonji served under separate military departments, it has directed this court to no authority to establish that either one of these two DoD components falls within an individual military department. 70 As indicated in the Francis analysis, the key to determining whether prior service is in the same agency is to identify the appointment authority for each of the positions in which an individual has served. As explained below, we find that the Secretary of Defense retains appointment authority over civilian personnel in the DoD Dependents Schools. If the appointment authority over civilian personnel in the DoD Postal Service likewise rests with the Secretary of Defense, Gonji's prior service was in the same agency. If the appointment authority over civilian personnel in the DoD Postal Service rests with the Secretary of an individual military department, Gonji's prior service was in that military department and therefore not in the same agency. 71 The organizational structure of the DoD Dependents Schools reveals that the Secretary of Defense retains appointment authority over DoDDS civilian personnel. See 32 C.F.R. pt. 347--Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) (1994). The regulations provide as follows: 72 Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Defense, [the Assistant Secretary of Defense] is hereby delegated authority as required in the administration and operation of the DoDDS to: 73 1. Exercise the powers vested in the Secretary of Defense by 5 U.S.C. [Secs.] 301, 302, and 3101 on the employment, direction, and general administration of DoDDS civilian personnel. 74 Id. Sec. 347.8 App. A. Therefore, we find that the agency under which Gonji served in his position with the Dependents Schools was the Department of Defense and not one of the individual military departments. 75 The status of Gonji's position with the DoD Postal Service is unclear and the issue must be remanded. The DoD Directive establishing the Military Postal Service (MPS) designates the Secretary of the Army as the single manager of the MPS, but does not clearly state whether civilian personnel in the MPS serve under the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of a military department controlling the base where the personnel is stationed. See DoDD 4525.6 (May 5, 1980). The Directive authorizes the Secretaries of the military departments to provide military personnel to staff the MPS, but is not clear as to who controls the appointment authority for civilian personnel serving in the MPS. See id. at E(4)(a). Each of the Standard Form 50 Notice of Personnel Actions that Gonji received in his position with the DoD Postal Service listed the Department of Defense as the Employing Department or Agency, as did the personnel actions he received in his DoD Dependents Schools position. 76 There is a substantial uncertainty in the record before us as to whether Gonji's position in the DoD Postal Service was in the Department of Defense or in an individual military department, and Gonji has raised allegations that cannot be disposed of summarily. He has made non-frivolous allegations that his two positions were in the same agency. He is therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Dumas v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 789 F.2d 892, 894 (Fed.Cir.1986). 77