Opinion ID: 483803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extended Duration of a Limited Appointment

Text: 36 Daniels points to other apparently inflexible provisions of the Act that actually do have escape hatches. First, Daniels reiterates an argument upon which the District Court relied heavily. The limited appointment provision, Sec. 3949, explicitly bars a limited appointment from being extended beyond five years; yet, the Acting Director in this case petitioned the grievance board to do exactly that, arguing that it had remedial power under Sec. 4137(b)(3), which permits the board to order the agency to retain in the Service a member whose separation would be in consequence of the matter by which the member is aggrieved. Daniels argues that if the plain meaning of Sec. 3949 can be overridden by a broad remedial provision like Sec. 4137(b)(3), then the less plain Sec. 3946 should be able to be overridden by the equally broad remedial provision, Sec. 4137(d). 37 We think that the manifest difference in purpose between Secs. 3949 and 3946 refutes Daniels' argument. Section 3949 attempts to implement an up-or-out system; as with university faculties or law firms, a non-tenured professional must either receive tenure after a certain period of time or leave the service. 10 Section 3949 stipulates that five years is to be the maximum trial period, but if a limited term appointee has been discriminated against or otherwise improperly denied the chance to show her mettle for a career appointment during those five years, then the number of such wasted years ought to be given back, as it were, to that limited term appointee, so that she can have a full five-year term as contemplated by Sec. 3949. Thus, the remedial Sec. 4137(b)(3) merely permits the Secretary, through the grievance board, to override the otherwise harsh consequences of the five-year rule when a limited term appointee has, for all intents and purposes, not been given a full five years to display her abilities. 11 38 Section 3946 is quite a different animal. Regardless of the various corrections the grievance board might make to ensure a fair evaluation of a career candidate, Sec. 3946 contemplates that ultimately a board composed mainly of career foreign service members will recommend whether or not a limited term appointee should be given tenure. Whereas Sec. 4137(b)(3) came into play here to ensure that Daniels received an unencumbered five-year trial period, as contemplated by Sec. 3949, a use of Sec. 4137(d) to give Daniels tenure would not support any such statutory goal. Indeed, it would actually accomplish the opposite result, ensuring that a board composed primarily of foreign service members would not have a say in the Daniels tenure matter. In sum, we agree with the Acting Director that the relationship between Secs. 3949 and 4137(b)(3) is materially distinct from that between Secs. 3946 and 4137(d). 39