Court Opinion

ID: 9448006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:20:07.673486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:15.282559
License: Public Domain

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
Regardless of the scope of the Veterans’ Preference Act as a whole, Section 14 of that Act is specifically limited to “permanent or indefinite preference eligible[s]”. The limiting adjectives are notable when other sections of the Act are read. Section 5 treats “preference eligibles”; Section 6 does the same, as does Section 7. Section 8 says “a veteran eligible”. Section 12 says “preference employees”; Sections 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 say “any preference eligible”. In sum, every section of the Act which mentions the subject uses an unqualified general expression, save only Section 14. That section by its explicit terms applies only to “permanent or indefinite” eligibles.
Born’s appointment1 for “four years or the need for employee’s services whichever is less” was neither permanent nor indefinite. It was certainly not permanent; and it was indefinite only in the sense that it was uncertain within a matter of months. “Indefinite” in the nomenclature of civil service laws and rules does not mean briefly uncertain; it means a prolonged tenure without specified termination, akin to a permanent appointment.2
My brethren rely upon Section 22.102 (a) of the Civil Service Regulations. But this section deals with procedure for appeals. It is a procedural regulation. It does not, and could not, expand the substantive rights conferred by the Act itself, which are the subject matter of the prescribed appellate procedure. A preceding section of the Regulations (Section 21.10) deals with the substantive rights of non-competitive preference employees in respect to removals, and it is phrased in language almost identical to Section 14, repeating in haec verba, the “permanent or indefinite” qualification.
My brethren also rely upon Congressional intention and legislative history. These are indeed useful considerations when statutory language is ambiguous. But I find no ambiguity in the phrase “permanent or indefinite preference eligible”.
So I conclude that Born was not within Section 14 of the Act. In this view I agree with the District Court and would affirm.

. Born was a veteran. Whether he was a “preference eligible” depends upon whether a Foreign Service Staff appointment to the U. S. Information Agency is within the scope of Section 1 of the Veterans’ Preference Act. I do not reach that question, assuming for the sake of the argument that he is a “preference eligible”.

. Although the Civil Service Rules and Regulations do not explicitly define the terms “permanent”, “indefinite” and “temporary”, as applied to the non-competitive- or unclassified service, the three terms are used throughout as referring to different modes of tenure.