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

Heading: Crediting Prior Service for Overseas Limited Appointees

Text: 44 We must first determine whether the position under which Gonji was serving at the time of his termination allows him to credit prior service toward completion of a probationary period. If so, we must then decide whether his prior service qualifies as creditable service. The Government argues that Gonji may not credit prior service because the position from which he was terminated was a temporary appointment. An individual in the competitive service may not combine a series of temporary appointments to qualify as an employee under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A). See Jenkins v. Department of the Army, 32 MSPR 207 (1987). At the time he was terminated from his position with the DoD Dependents Schools, Gonji was serving under an overseas limited term appointment not to exceed two years. We cannot agree that this was a temporary appointment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A). 45 The Civil Service Regulations outline the three separate types of overseas limited appointments: 46 (a) overseas limited appointments of indefinite duration; 47 (b) overseas limited term appointments for a period not in excess of 5 years; and 48 (c) temporary overseas limited appointments for a period of 1 year or less. 49 See 5 C.F.R. Sec. 301.203 (1995). An individual is required to serve a 1 year trial period when given an overseas limited appointment of indefinite duration or an overseas limited term appointment. 5 C.F.R. Sec. 301.204 (1995) (emphasis added). At the time of his termination, Gonji was serving under an overseas limited term appointment not to exceed two years and was therefore required to serve a one year trial period. As an individual serving under an appointment over one year in duration and subject to a trial period, we find that Gonji held a non-temporary appointment within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A). 50 As an individual in the competitive service serving under a non-temporary appointment at the time of termination, Gonji may count creditable prior service toward completion of his probationary period. The remaining question is whether Gonji's prior service qualifies as creditable.
51 Section 7511(a)(1)(A) itself does not address the standards for determining the completion of a probationary period. These standards were left to the Office of Personnel Management. Since before the enactment of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, standards for crediting prior service were found only in the Federal Personnel Manual. 9 At the time Gonji was terminated, the Federal Personnel Manual guidelines provided: FPM Chapter 315 (1992) 52 Subchapter 8-4. Crediting Service Toward Completion of Probation 53 a. Crediting prior service. When an individual with prior Federal civilian service is subject to a probationary period, the agency must credit such prior service (including nonappropriated fund) toward completion of probation when all three of the following apply: 54 (1) The prior service immediately precedes the probationary appointment and contains no more than one break in service of 30 calendar days or less or there is a break between the prior service and the new appointment of 30 days or less; and 55 (2) The prior service is in the same Federal agency, e.g., Department of the Army (service in a previous agency may be credited only when an employee has been transferred with his or her function); 10 and 56 (3) The prior service is in the same line of work as the position in which the employee is subject to probation. (This requirement does not apply to a disabled veteran converted under section 7-8 of this Chapter.) 57 (emphasis added.) The Government claims that Gonji's prior service was not in the same agency and not in the same line of work, but first argues that these standards apply only to career and career-conditional appointments and therefore do not allow Gonji to credit prior service as an overseas limited appointee. 58 These standards for crediting prior service appear in FPM Chapter 315 and were enacted pursuant to the Civil Service Regulations that cover career and career-conditional appointments. See 5 C.F.R. Sec. 315.802(b) (1995) (OPM shall publish in the Federal Personnel Manual a statement of the conditions under which prior service is counted toward completion of a probationary period.). FPM Chapter 315 is entitled: Career and Career-Conditional Employment. It is not clear on the face of these guidelines whether they may also be applied to overseas limited employment. 59 The Civil Service Regulations covering overseas limited appointments, 5 C.F.R. pt. 301, do not include any similar provisions requiring OPM to publish guidelines for crediting prior service. Term appointees under 5 C.F.R. pt. 316(C) are in the same boat. Although term appointees are required to serve a trial period, the regulations do not direct OPM to publish guidelines to allow term appointees to credit prior service toward completion of the trial period. See 5 C.F.R. Secs. 316.301-05 (1995). 60 Although the regulations and guidelines in effect today do not address the issue of tacking (crediting prior service) for term or overseas limited appointments, the Federal Personnel Manual in effect at the time the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was enacted did include provisions allowing tacking for these types of appointments. See FPM Supplement 752-1, S2-1(c) (1976). This Supplement specifically referred overseas limited appointees to FPM Chapter 315 to determine the completion of their probationary period: 61 An employee with a term appointment, overseas limited term appointment, overseas limited appointment of indefinite duration, or indefinite appointment is covered by subparts B and C of part 752 [expanded appeal rights] if he is not serving a trial period 11 .... (FPM chapter 315 contains information for determining completion of a trial period.) 62 (emphasis added.) We interpret this passage to mean that prior service was counted toward the completion of a probationary period for overseas limited appointees under FPM Chapter 315 at the time Congress enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Although this Supplement has since been revoked (effective Jan. 11, 1979) and replaced by Chapter 752, see FPM Chapter 752 1-1a(1) (1980), it nevertheless reflects OPM practice at the time Congress enacted section 7511(a)(1)(A). OPM practice at the time is significant because in enacting the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress made clear that it was merely providing a statutory basis for current OPM procedures: 63 Subsection (a) [of section 7511] provides a statutory basis for the procedural protections and appeal rights now granted employees in the competitive service who are serving under career, career, career-conditional, or certain other non-temporary appointments, and who have completed a probationary or trial period. Protections against arbitrary or capricious actions have become established by practice and Executive Order--but not by statute--as a basic right of competitive service employees. 64 S.Rep. No. 969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 48 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723, 2770. The certain other non-temporary appointments that Congress referred to included term, indefinite, overseas limited term, and overseas limited appointments of indefinite duration. See supra Part B. We have no doubt that Congress intended OPM to follow its published guidelines and continue to allow FPM Chapter 315 tacking for these types of appointments in addition to career and career-conditional appointments. Therefore, we find that individuals such as Gonji serving under non-temporary overseas limited appointments may use FPM Chapter 315 guidelines to count prior service toward completion of a probationary period. 65 We now turn to the FPM Chapter 315 guidelines listed above to determine whether Gonji's prior federal service is creditable. Gonji's personnel records show that there was no break in service between his last day with the DoD Postal Service and his first day with the DoD Dependents Schools. The Government takes issue only with the remaining two requirements, arguing that Gonji's prior service was not in the same agency and not in the same line of work. 66
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
78 The Government next argues that Gonji's prior service as a Laborer with the DoD Postal Service was not in the same line of work as his Library Technician position with the DoD Dependents Schools. Gonji alleges that the duties he performed in these positions were similar, and that the job skills and performance descriptions rather than the job titles control whether positions are in the same line of work. 79 Neither party to this appeal has raised the issue of whether 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1)(A) may have exempted competitive service appointees from a same or similar positions or same line of work requirement. See Mathis v. United States Postal Serv., 865 F.2d 232, 234 (Fed.Cir.1988) (recognizing that 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7511(a)(1) does not include the same or similar positions requirement for individuals in the competitive service). We therefore do not reach this issue. 80 At the time of Gonji's termination, the Federal Personnel Manual defined the term same line of work as follows: 81 For purposes of the probationary period, same line of work means that the duties performed are similar in nature and character and require substantially the same qualifications (including knowledges, skills and abilities), so that an employee could be interchanged between the positions without significant training or undue interruption to the work. The controlling factor remains the duties actually performed, and agencies must make this determination on an individual basis. 82 FPM Ch. 315, 8-4a (1992). 83 In his appeal to the Board, Gonji alleged that his prior service was in the same line of work. Gonji attached an affidavit describing each of his two positions in similar terms. He described his position in the DoD Postal Service as including filing, accountability, inventory, administrative duties, and other work related to the mail services. He similarly described his duties at the DoD Dependents Schools as involving filing, accountability, and related administrative tasks within the school library. He stated that [t]hese tasks and responsibilities were similar to those which I performed in my former position with the Post Office, and stated that he received no additional or specialized training or instructions for this position. Manifestly, Gonji has raised non-frivolous allegations that his two positions were in the same line of work. He is therefore entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue. See Dumas, 789 F.2d at 894.