Fighting with Congress for Equity and Justice on Behalf of Nondisabled Retired Military Personnel
by Walter G. Pittman
Smashwords ebook published by Fideli Publishing, Inc.
© Copyright 2011, Walter G. Pittman
No part of this eBook may be reproduced or shared by any electronic or mechanical means, including but not limited to printing, file sharing, and email, without prior written permission from Fideli Publishing.
Smashwords Edition, License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.
ISBN: 978-1-60414-339-3
Contents
Chapter 1 — Introduction to Book and Resolution I Am Seeking
Chapter 2 — My Reasons for Writing This Book
Chapter 3 — Veterans’ Preference
Chapter 4 — Wartime and Military Service for Veterans’ Preference Credit Purposes
Chapter 5 — Resolution Sought in the Former Subcommittee on Employee Benefits
Chapter 6 — Resolution Sought in the New Subcommittee on Civil Service
Chapter 7 — Computing Service Computations Dates for ALA
Glossary of Terms for the Purpose of This Book
Bibliography / Resources and Cases Cited
In Memoriam They’re Gone,
but Not Forgotten
MSCM Earl Mitchell Jr.
1934-1994
As you serve in the military, in war and in peace, you meet many friends and hope that friendship will never cease. But when I met the shipmates shown on this page, it was more than friendship, it was as if I had found my two long-sought-after brothers. When I met their families, their families became extended families to my family. Their families and my family still enjoy a close family relationship. Although, my two brothers have departed from us; yes, “They’re gone, but not forgotten.”
AMS1 Ben Davis Taliaferro-Toliver Jr.
1930-1994
Acknowledgments
My first words of thanks are to God for giving me the strength and endurance to stay-the-course in my fight with Congress for equity and justice on behalf of nondisabled retired military personnel in my continued efforts in trying to obtain Veterans’ Preference credit for the wartime and military service that was performed “in active service in the armed forces during,” the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War. Congress, in the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448, restricted the crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” to wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” to be credited after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in its prejudiced opposition to crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448, prescribed in their rules and regulations in the Federal Personnel Manual (FPM) Supplement 296-33, Chapters 6 and 7, that the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, are “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions.” This action by OPM took away the crediting of the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, as being performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for civil service credit purposes.
My second words of thanks go to my wife, Pearl, for being patient with me for more than three years to write this appeal, which is my book. I owe a special gratitude of thanks to Pearl for being my wife for more than forty-four years, and for taking care of our daughters, Sylvia, Sheila, and Sonia, while I was away from my family during my navy career.
I owe special thanks to the employees at the Fremont Main Library at 2400 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, California; the South County Branch Law Library at 224 West Wenton Avenue, Hayward, California; and the Law Library at 125 Twelfth Street, Oakland, California, for their help in assisting me in finding the laws, statutes, and reference materials that I needed during the appeal phases of my efforts, and converting my appeals into this book.
My personal thanks go to several attorneys for their support in verifying my interpretation of the definition of the terms “period of war” and “veteran of any war” as specified by Congress in P.L. 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in PL. 102-25, respectively, and codified by Congress in Section 101 (11), and (12), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A.; to disabled veterans and nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” who provided data from their “Notification of Personnel Action, Standard Form (SF)-50” forms, and their encouragement; to those who reviewed some of my material during the appeal and book phase of my efforts; to Ms. Mimi Chwang (“Chwang” is pronounced as “Twang”), who prepared most of the material during the appeal phase of my efforts, and to Mr. Koondar Lee, who designed the front cover for my book.
Preface
Whereas, the fact that the first sentence in paragraph (7) on page 1216, in the Legislative History of the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1951, explained that; “the definition of “period of war” would include the period of any future war declared by the Congress, it would be an extension of existing law which generally limits such defined period to past wars.”
Whereas, resulting from this fact, Congress specified the definition of “period of war” in Public Law (PL.) 85-56, in PL. 90-77, and in PL. 102-25, respectively, to include the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, therein, as “period of wars,” the same as “those ‘period of wars’ for which a declaration of war was issued by the Congress,” which includes the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II;
Whereas, the fact that Congress specified in paragraph (13), in PL. 85-56, that; a “veteran of any war” means any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a “period of war”; and
Whereas, the fact that “entitlement to various veterans benefits and services, preference, and other assistance” is “limited to persons serving in the armed forces between dates fixed by or pursuant to law, regardless of where the person served or what duties were performed”:
Therefore, the facts cited above demonstrate that the active military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, is, in fact, wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to “retired members of any of the uniformed services” for RIF and ALA, on December 1, 1964, the effective date of implementing the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, PL. 88-448.
* * * * *
It is important to note here that the “dates fixed by or pursuant to law,” for the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War are as follows:
1. For the Korean Conflict: the “fixed dates” in P.L. 85-56, of “June 17, 1950,” and “January 31, 1955.” The ending date of “January 31, 1955,” in P.L. 85-56, is consistent with the ending date of “January 31, 1955,” as proclaimed in Presidential Proclamation Number 3080, by President Eisenhower;
2. For the Vietnam Era; the “fixed dates” in P.L. 90-77, of “August 5, 1964,” and “May 7, 1975.” The ending date of “May 7, 1975,” is consistent with the ending date of “May 7, 1975,” as proclaimed in Presidential Proclamation Number 4373, by President Ford; and
3. For the Persian Gulf War; the “fixed dates” of “August 2, 1990, and ending on the date thereafter prescribed by Presidential proclamation or by law.” (The term “by law” means a “concurrent resolution of the Congress.”) During my research, I did not find a “presidential proclamation” or a “concurrent resolution of the Congress” that ended the Persian Gulf War. If there is no “presidential proclamation,” or a “concurrent resolution,” of the Congress that ending the Persian Gulf War, it is still ongoing.
* * * * *
Instead of OPM accepting the facts, cited above, OPM prescribed in its rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, chapters 6 and 7, that the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War is “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions” service, for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A., to “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” on December 1, 1964.
This action by OPM took away the crediting of the wartime and military service that was performed “between dates fixed by or pursuant to law,” for the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, as being performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” on December 1, 1964, the effective date of implementing the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448.
Congress, in the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448, amended Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, to specify some limits for crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit to “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” on December 1, 1964, the effective date of implementing the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448.
Congress, in P.L. 88-448, limited the crediting of that Veterans’ Preference credit to wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” as follows:
For “career military retirees”: Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1) in P.L. 88-448, specified the following provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for wartime service that was performed by “career military retirees,” meaning, “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” having twenty or more years full-time active service, for reduction-in-force (RIF), on December 1, 1964:
“(c) In computing length of total service, an employee who is a retired member of any of the uniformed services shall be given credit for—
(1) the length of time in active service in the armed forces during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized).”
* * * * *
It is important to note here that, what Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1) in P.L. 88-448, for RIF, is consistent with the explanation on page 2839 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Veterans’ Preference,” beginning at line 7, and consistent with what Congress codified in Section 3502 (a) (4), (B) (i) under Title 5 U.S.C.A., for RIF. The Veterans’ Preference provisions specified by Congress in P.L. 88-448, are contrary to the “fresh start” principle, as interpreted and prescribed by OPM.
* * * * *
For “retired military persons having less than twenty years’ service: Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, specified provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for military service that was performed by “retired military persons having less than twenty years’ service,” for RIF, on December 1, 1964.
“(c) In computing length of total service, an employee who is a retired member of any of the uniformed services
shall be given credit for—
(2) if he is included under clause (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) of this section, the total length of time in active service in the armed forces.
* * * * *
It is important to note here that “subsection (b) of this section,” cited above, means Section 202, Subsection (b) in the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448.
It is also important to note here that what Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, for RIF, is consistent with the explanation on page 2839 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Veterans’ Preference,” beginning on line 21, after the word “preference,” and consistent with what Congress codified in Section 3502 (a) (4), (B) (ii) under Title 5 U.S.C.A., for RIF. The Veterans’ Preference for crediting wartime and military service for RIF and ALA credit as specified by Congress in P.L. 88-448, are contrary to the “fresh start” principle, as interpreted and prescribed by OPM.
* * * * *
For all “retired members of any of the uniformed services”: Congress, in Section 203, Clause (3), in P.L. 88-448, specified provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for the “creditable years of military service,” that was performed by “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” for annual leave accrual (ALA), on December I, 1964:
“Sec. 203 … Active military service of a retired member of any of the uniformed services is not creditable in determining years of service for the purpose of this subsection unless—
(3) such service was performed in the armed forces “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized).”
* * * * *
It is important to note here that what Congress specified in Section 203, Clause (3) in P.L. 88-448, for ALA, is consistent with the explanation on page 2840 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Crediting military Service for annual leave purposes,” beginning at line 13, and consistent with what Congress codified in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B) under Title 5 U.S.C.A., for ALA. The Veterans’ Preference credit for military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” as specified by Congress in PL. 88-448, are contrary to the “fresh start” principle, as interpreted and prescribed by OPM.
* * * * *
Therefore, Congress must enact appropriate legislation directing OPM to:
1. Accept the “legislative intent” of Congress in PL. 85-56, in PL. 90-77, and in PL. 102-25, respectively, that the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War are “period of wars” the same as those “period of wars” for which a declaration of war was issued by the Congress,” which includes the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Alexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II;
2. Accept the “legislative intent” of Congress in PL. 85-56, that a “veteran of any war” means any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war”;
3. Accept and credit the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, by “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” as wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for Veterans’ Preference credit, as specified by Congress in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clauses (1) and (2), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in PL. 88-448; and
4. Accept and credit the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, as wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized).”
In order to restore the equity and justice to “retired members of any of the uniformed services” that was taken away by OPM, the crediting of this Veterans’ Preference credit for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02 for RIF, and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B) for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A., must be credited retroactive to December 1, 1964, the effective date of implementing the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448, commensurate with each “period of war” that occurred thereafter.
Chapter 1 — Introduction to the Book and the Resolution I am Seeking
The beginning of the erosion of Veterans’ Preference credit for civil service credit purposes under Title 5 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.). Congress specified in the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, Chapter 287—Public Law 359, that this law is “An act to give honorable discharged veterans, their widows, and the wives of disabled veterans, who themselves are not qualified, preference in employment where Federal funds are disbursed.” Nonveteran federal civilian servants were then, and are still, opposed to Veterans’ Preference credit, in general. But their greatest opposition is against crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” who are the backbone of the armed forces of the United States in maintaining military readiness for going into harm’s way, in a combat zone. Veterans’ Preference is covered in detail in Chapter 3 of this book.
OPM’s prejudiced opposition against crediting Veterans’ Preference to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services.” The Civil Service Commission, which was the predecessor of the Office of Personnel Management, now OPM, has always had a prejudiced opposition against crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” for civil service credit purposes as codified by Congress in Sections 3501-02, for reduction-in-force (RIF) and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for annual leave accrual (ALA) under Title 5 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.), before and after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448. OPM’s prejudiced opposition existed, because nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” are
1. “Entitled, under statute, to retired, retirement, or retainer pay on account of service as such a member,” as codified by Congress in Sections 2108 (5) Section 3501 (a) (2) under Title 5 U.S.C.A.;
2. Entitled to receive Veterans’ Preference credit for wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” as specified by Congress in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clauses (1), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in P.L. 88-448, for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A.; and
3. Entitled to receive regular pay for their work as federal civilian servants.
Because of OPM’s continued prejudiced opposition to crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed Services,” Congress enacted the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, Public Law (P.L.) 88-448, wherein, Congress amended Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, to specify some “limits” on the way in which the “active duty military service” that was performed by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” could be used for civil service purposes. The “limits” specified by Congress in P.L. 88-448 involve crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to three categories “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” as follows:
1. “Career military retirees” (meaning retirees having “twenty or more years full-time active service”), indicated in this book as nondisabled career military retirees. These retired members “can count only their wartime service in computing seniority,” for RIF, as explained on page 2839 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Veterans’ preference,” beginning on line 9, after the word “and,” which is consistent with what Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1) in P.L. 88-448, for RIF;
2. “Retired military persons having less than twenty years’ service …” indicated in this book as nondisabled retired military persons having less than twenty years full-time active service, “will retain all preference,” for RIF (meaning “the total length of time in active service in the armed forces”), as explained on page 2839 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Veterans’ preference,” beginning on line 21, after the word “preference,” which is consistent with what Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, for RIF; and
3. “Retired member of any of the uniformed services,” indicated in this book as nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” can “count only military service performed in the armed forces during any war or in any campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized,” for ALA, as explained on page 2840 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Crediting military service for annual leave purposes,” beginning on line 15, after the words “services to,” which is consistent with what Congress specified in Section 203, Clause (3) in P.L. 88-448, for ALA.
The problem with crediting the Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448, as described above, began when OPM refused to accept the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of Wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, as wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for Veterans’ Preference credit, as specified by Congress in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clauses (1) and (2), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in P.L. 88-448.
* * * * *
It is important to note here that Congress specified in P.L. 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, respectively, and codified in Section 101 (9), (11), (29), and (33), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., that the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War are “period of wars” the same as those “period of wars” for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress, which includes the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II.
It is also important to note here that Congress specified in P.L. 85-56, and codified in Section 101 (12), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., that a “veteran of any war” means any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war.
* * * * *
Therefore, wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” should have been accepted by OPM, and credited as wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized).”
However, OPM, in their rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, chapters 6 and 7, prescribed the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, as “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions,” to take away the crediting of that wartime and military service, as being performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A.
Opposition to crediting Veterans’ Preference to retired military personnel, as heard during the hearing on [H.R. 7381]. The Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, on page 2850, explained the following “controversial issues involved in the employment of retired military personnel in Federal civilian positions,” under the paragraph entitled, “Employment of retired military personnel,” beginning at line 8:
“It is recognized that there are some controversial issues involved in the employment of retired military personnel in Federal civilian positions. Some people maintain that a retired military person has earned his military retirement pay as a result of his military service; therefore, if he is employed by the Government in a civilian capacity he is entitled to both his full military retirement pay and the regular civilian pay for the position. Others believe that no person should receive retired pay and regular pay from a single employer at the same time.”
Regarding “others believe that no person should receive retired pay and regular pay from a single employer at the same time”: Let the “others” serve 1 year, 11 months, and 2 5 days of day-to-day service in “America’s Forgotten War,” better known as the Korean Conflict, and serve 3 years, 7 months, and 14 days of day-to-day service in the combat zone of the “Unpopular War” or “Unjust War,” better known as the Vietnam Era, as I did, to find out if they still “believe that no person should receive retired pay and regular pay from a single employer at the same time.”
Resulting from OPM’s prejudiced opposition against crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services, labeled by some as the “double dippers,” Congress introduced a bill, H.R. 7381, and held a hearing on OPM’s prejudiced opposition.
* * * * *
It is important to note here that the term “double dipper” means nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” who are receiving “retired, retirement, or retainer pay” for their years of wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” and receiving “regular pay” for their work as federal civilian servants.
* * * * *
Resultant from the hearing on the bill, H.R. 7381, Congress enacted the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, Public Law (PL.) 88-448, H.R. 7381, wherein Congress amended Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, Chapter 287—Public Law 359, to specify some “limits” on the way in which Veterans’ Preference credit will be credited to the nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” (meaning those “double dippers”) in the future. The label “double dipper” includes the author of this book. I am proud to have served my country in the armed forces of the United States, and I am not offended by the label “double dipper,” because, by serving my country in the armed forces of the United States, I earned all the benefits that Congress awarded to all service members, including “double dippers.”
* * * * *
It is important to note here that the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, Chapter 287—Public Law 359, approved June 27, 1944, was enacted during the Seventy-eighth Congress. I took the liberty of changing “Chapter 287— Public Law 359” to read “PL. 78-359.” Therefore, the law now reads: “The Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, PL. 78-359,” throughout this book.
* * * * *
Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, P.L. 78-359, as amended by Congress in P.L. 88-448. Prior to Congress amending Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, P.L. 78-359, Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, through the “first proviso” (meaning the first word “provided”) read as follows:
“Sec. 12. In any reduction in personnel in any civilian service of any Federal agency, competing employees shall be released in accordance with Civil Service Commission regulations which shall give due effect to tenure of employment, military preference, length of service, and efficiency ratings: Provided, That the length of time spent in active service in the armed forces of the United States of each such employee shall be credited in computing length of total service.”
Congress, in the P.L. 88-448, amended Section 12 of the Veterans Act of 1944, P.L. 79-359, as follows:
Sec. 202. Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, as amended (5 U.S.C. 861), is amended—
1. by inserting “(a)” immediately following “Sec. 12.”;
2. by inserting “subject to subsection (c) of this section,” immediately after the word “That” in the first proviso thereof;
3. by inserting “(subject to subsection (b) of this section,” immediately after “military preference”; and]
4. by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections.
I took the liberty of including the first three amendment changes specified by Congress to be made to Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, P.L. 78-359, to demonstrate that Congress did not specify the “fresh start” principle in P.L. 88-448, to eliminate the crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” as interpreted and prescribed by OPM in their rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, chapters 6 and 7. By adding the amendment changes that Congress specified in P.L. 88-448, to be made to Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, P.L. 78-359, through the firstword “provided,” caused Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944 to read as follows:
Sec. 12, (a). In any reduction in personnel in any civilian service of any Federal agency, competing employees shall be released in accordance with Civil Service regulations which shall give due effect to tenure of employment military preference, “(subject to subsection (b) of this section,” length of service, and efficiency ratings: Provided, That “subject to subsection (c) of this section,” the length of time spent in active service in the armed forces of the United States of each such employee shall be credited in computing length of total service.
Whereas, since Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in P.L. 88-448, restricted the crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit to wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services”; and
Whereas, since Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause
in P.L. 88-448, that nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” that are “included under clause (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b) of this section,” meaning Section 202, Subsection (b), Clause (1), (2), or
of P.L. 88-448, “shall be given credit for the total length of time in active service in the armed forces”:
Therefore, Congress was in compliance with Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, P.L. 78-359, as amended by Congress in P.L. 88-448. Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, apply to crediting “preference eligibility” to nondisabled retired military persons having less than twenty years of full-time active service, for RIF.
What Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clauses (1) and (2), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in P.L. 88-448, for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448, is, in fact, consistent with the “legislative intent” of Congress, as explained on pages 2839 and 2840 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act.
When Congress restricted the crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit to wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” the restrictions specified by Congress in P.L. 88-448, did not go as far as the Civil Service Commission wanted Congress to go.
For example, the prejudiced opposition to Veterans’ Preference as noted on page 2839 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Veterans’ preference,” beginning on line 4, after the word “bill,” whereas, the Civil Service Commission recommended the “elimination of all veterans’ preference for any retired member of the Armed Forces,” during the hearing on the U.S. House of Representatives Bill H.R. 7381, as follows:
“The original proposal of the Civil Service Commission recommended elimination of all veteran’s preference for any retired member of the Armed Forces having more than 6 years’ continuous active duty.”
Another example of prejudiced opposition to Veterans’ Preference is the “fresh start” principle, as noted in paragraph 2 on page 2846, and explained in the Proposed Legislation on page 2849 in the Legislative History of the Dual Compensation Act, under the paragraph entitled, “Employment of retired military personnel,” beginning at line 15. The “fresh start” principle, if specified by Congress in P.L. 88-448, would have eliminated the crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448, as follows:
1. “require that their prior military service not be counted in computing length of service for reduction-in-force, leave, and retirement purposes; and would
2. withhold veterans’ preference.”
The Dual Compensation Act of 1964, Public Law (P.L.) 88-448, as enacted by Congress. In drafting the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448, [H.R. 7381], Congress did not specify the “original proposal” recommended by the Civil Service Commission or specify the “fresh start” principle that was proposed during the hearing on H.R. 7381.
In responding to many appeals by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” regarding crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for RIF and ALA many respondents refer to the “fresh start” principle, as the legislative intent of Congress in P.L. 88-448, for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for RIF and ALA to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448. Here are two examples of respondents referring to the “fresh start” principle, as the intent of Congress in P.L. 88-448, for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for RIF and ALA to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” in responding to my appeal to Representative John L. Mica, chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service:
Example Number 1: The deputy assistant secretary of defense (DASD) noted the following in the first and second sentences of her July 10, 1995, letter to Representative Mica, included hereinafter in Appendix E, in response to my letter to Representative Mica dated May 3, 1995, included hereinafter as Appendix C:
“Legislative history explains that Congress believed that the law would establish a “fresh start” principle for retired military personnel engaged in civilian employment. Congress explained that because persons retiring from the military have generally realized retirement benefits based on a military career, it would be “desirable and equitable” for them to start their civilian careers on the same basis as others who enter civilian service,” (for the first time). (The words “for the first time” were not included in the DASD’s quote.)
The “legislative intent” of Congress in P.L. 88-448 was not the “fresh start” principle, as interpreted by the DASD.
* * * * *
It is not what Congress believed that the law would do, that is law. It is what Congress specified in the law that became the law of the land. That is the law that Congress and OPM should believe and abide by. —Walter G. Pittman, Engineering Aid Chief (EAC), USN, Ret.
* * * * *
Example Number 2: Mr. James B. King, the director of the Office of Personnel Management, noted the following on page 2, in the last sentence of the seventh paragraph of his August 7, 1995, letter to Representative Mica, included hereinafter in Appendix E, in response to my letter to Representative Mica dated May 3, 1995, included hereinafter in Appendix C: “For purposes of retention and credit for annual leave, Congress believed that the military retiree in a second career should have a ‘fresh start,’ unless the retiree is disabled because of the armed conflict.”
Instead of specifying the “fresh start” principle in P.L. 88-448, Congress amended Section 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, P.L. 78-359, to specify provisions for crediting wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” for Veterans’ Preference credit for RIF and ALA, after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448, as follows:
1. Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (b), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, specified provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference Eligibility to “retired military persons having less than twenty years’ service,” indicated in this book, as nondisabled retired military persons having less than twenty years full-time active service. What Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (b), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, is consistent with the Veterans’ Preference eligibility provisions codified by Congress in Section 3501 (a) (3) (B) under Title 5 United States Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.), for civil service credit purposes;
2. Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1) in P.L. 88-448, specified provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for wartime service that was performed by “career military retirees,” meaning “retirees” having twenty or more years of full-time active service, indicated in this book as nondisabled career military retirees, for RIF. What Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1) in P.L. 88-448, is consistent with the statutory provisions codified by Congress in Section 3502 (a) (4), (B) (i), for civil service credit purposes for RIF, under Title 5 U.S.C.A.;
3. Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, specified provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for military service that was performed by nondisabled retired military persons having less than twenty years full-time active service, “for the length of time in active service in the armed forces,” for RIF. What Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (2) in P.L. 88-448, is consistent with the statutory provisions codified by Congress in Section 3502 (A) (4), (B) (ii), for civil service credit purposes for RIF under Title 5 U.S.C.A.;
4. Congress, in Section 203, Clause (3) in P.L. 88-448, specified provisions for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for military service that was performed by nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for ALA. What Congress specified in Section 203, Clause (3) in P.L. 88-448, is consistent with the statutory provisions codified by Congress in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for civil service credit purposes for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A.; and
5. Congress specified in P.L. 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, respectively, and codified in Section 101 (9), (11), (29), and (33), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., that the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War are “period of wars” the same as those “period of wars” for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress, which includes the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II.
Therefore, based on what Congress specified in P.L. 88-448, and codified in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A., cited above, demonstrates that Congress did not “believe that the law would establish a ‘fresh start’ principle for retired military personnel engaged in civilian employment,” nor did Congress “believe that it would be ‘desirable and equitable’ for persons retiring from the military to start their civilian careers on the same basis as others who enter civilian service for the first time,” as noted by the DASD and the director of OPM.
Reason Number 1 for Fighting With Congress for Equity and Justice
I am fighting with congress for equity and justice on behalf of nondisabled retired military personnel who served in “the active military, naval, or air service,” during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, challenging the regulatory authority of OPM to pick and choose which “period of wars” OPM can except or reject, for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A
This act of discrimination was made by OPM in view of the fact that Congress, in the definition of the term “period of war” in P.L. 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, respectively, and in Section 101 (11), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., considered the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, as congressionally declared wars, the same as “those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress,” which includes the War of 1812, Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II.
OPM chose to accept and credit the wartime and military service that was performed during the “period of wars” of the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II as the only wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C A.
OPM also chose to accept and credit the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War as wartime and military service that was performed during “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions.” This action by OPM took away the crediting of the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War as wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” as specified by Congress in:
1. Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1), for RIF in PL. 88-448, which is consistent with what Congress codified in Section 3502 (a) (4), (B) (i), for RIF under Title 5 U.S.C.A., for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for wartime service to nondisabled career military retirees; and
2. Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in PL. 88-448, which is consistent with what Congress codified in Section 6303 (a) (3), (b), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A., for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for military service to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services.”
You may ask the question, “Why is Walt Pittman wasting his time in fighting with Congress for equity and justice on behalf of nondisabled retired military personnel?”
I am in fighting with Congress for equity and justice on behalf of nondisabled retired military personnel, because I feel that, since it was the acts of Congress that provided authorizations, arms, troops, money, and other appropriations for Presidents Truman, Johnson, and Bush to prosecute the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, irrespective of the absence of a formal or specific “declaration of war” by Congress for these post-World War II “period of wars.”
Therefore, it is inconceivable that Congress empowered OPM with the regulatory authority in Section 6311 under Title 5 U.S.C.A., which specifically notes that: “The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations necessary for the administration of this subchapter,” to regulate the “wartime” status of an armed conflict by determining that:
1. “In the absence of a statutory definition of ‘war,’“ or “In the absence of a specific declaration of war,” the Civil Service Commission was empowered by Congress with the regulatory authority to take away the wartime recognition given by Congress to the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War in the PL 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, as noted by Dr. Philip A. D. Schneider, on behalf of OPM, in Appendix A;
2. and by determining that Congress empowered OPM with the regulatory authority to determine that “Vietnam was not a ‘war’ for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 6303 (B),” as noted by the acting comptroller general of the United States, on page 3, in “COMP 08 Jun 87 B-213727.2 Simrak, David T., OPM,” in support of OPM’s interpretation of the statutory phrase: “during a war, or in a campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” as codified by Congress in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A. “COMP 08 Jun 87 B-213727.2 Simrak, David T, OPM,” is included here in Appendix B.
To reiterate: Whereas, since Congress specified in P.L. 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, respectively, and codified in Section 101-(11), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., that the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, are “period of wars” the same as “those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress,” which includes the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II:
Therefore, Congress was acting within the “legislative intent” of Congress in P.L. 85-56, P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, when Congress specified and codified that the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War are “period of wars,” irrespective of the absence of a formal statutory or specific “declaration of war” by the Congress, such as was the case of the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II.
Congress specified and codified that the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War are “period of wars,” because the acts of Congress that provided authorization, troops, arms, money, and other appropriations for the presidents to start and prosecute the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War made the “president’s actions constitutional.” {Set Massachusetts v. Laird, 1971.)
I also feel that OPM, because of their prejudiced opposition against crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” OPM construed to repeal or modify the Veterans’ Preference provisions specified by Congress in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clauses (1) and (2), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in P.L. 88-448, by prescribing the post-World War II the Persian Gulf War, as “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions,” for civil service credit purposes.
This action by OPM took away the crediting of the Veterans’ Preference credit for wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” as being performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” from nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.CA., after Congress enacted P.L. 88-448.
Regarding “the absence of statutory definitions for ‘war’“ as prescribed by OPM. To take away the crediting of Veterans’ Preference credit that Congress specified in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1), for RIF and in Section 203, Clause (3), for ALA in P.L. 88-448, OPM prescribed its own “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions” restriction, for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services.” OPM’s “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions” restriction is contrary to the wartime and military service restriction specified by Congress in P.L. 88-448. To justify OPM’s “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions” service restriction, OPM prescribed the following rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, chapters 6 and 7. Note Number 1, on page 7-31:
“In the absence of statutory definitions for “war” and “campaign or expedition,” OPM considers to be “wars” only those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress. The title 38, U.S.C., definition of “war,” which is used in determining benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, includes the Vietnam Era and other armed conflicts. That Title 38 definition is NOT applicable for civil service purposes.”
Congress specified the definition of the term “period of war” in P.L. 85-56, in P.L. 90-77, and in P.L. 102-25, and codified that definition in Section 101 (11), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., that includes the “Vietnam Era and other armed conflicts,” which is, according to OPM, “The Title 38 U.S.C., definition of “war,” to read as follows:
“(11) The term “period of war” means the Spanish-American War, the Mexican border period, World War I, and World War II, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam era, and the Persian Gulf War, and the period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the Congress and ending on the date prescribed by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the Congress.”
The fact that Congress specified and codified: “and the period beginning on the date of any future declaration of war by the Congress and ending on the date prescribed by presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the Congress,” after “Persian Gulf War” in “The title 38, U.S.C., definition of ‘war,’“ demonstrates that Congress considers all armed conflicts specified and codified by Congress, in “The title 38, U.S.C., definition of ‘war’,” as “congressionally declared wars”; and
The fact that Congress specified the definition of the term “veteran of any war” in PL. 85-56, and codified that definition in Section 101 (12), although under Title 38 U.S.C.A., that: “The term ‘veteran of any war’ means any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war.”
Therefore, resulting from the definition of the term “period of war” and the term “veteran of any war,” as specified and codified by Congress, it is reasonable to interpret that the term “period of war” is Congress’s “statutory definition of ‘war.’“ It is also reasonable to interpret that Congress intended that Title 38 U.S.C., definition of “war” to be used for:
1. “Determining veterans benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,” now the “Veterans Affairs Committee” under Title 38 U.S.C.A.; and
2. Crediting Veterans’ Preference credit for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in Section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A., to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” for the wartime and military service they performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, after Congress enacted PL. 88-448, that is “administered by OPM.”
Therefore, it is also time for Congress to direct OPM to accept and credit the wartime and military service that was performed during all “period of wars” that Congress specified and codified in the definition of the term “period of war,” as wartime and military service that was performed “during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A. The crediting of the wartime and military service that was performed during the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War, must be credited retroactively to December 1, 1964, the effective date of implementing the Dual Compensation Act of 1964, P.L. 88-448, commensurate with the post-World War II “period of wars” that nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services” served in.
* * * * *
To credit the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War as “period of wars” for VA benefits under Title 38 U.S.C.A., and credit the same post-World War II armed conflicts as “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions” for civil service credit purposes under Title 5 U.S.C.A., is to establish a “double standard” crediting the post-World War II armed conflicts of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War.
—Walter G. Pittman, Engineering Aid Chief (EAC), USN, Ret.
* * * * *
Because of the absence of statutory definitions for “war” and “campaign or expedition,” OPM accepted and accredited only the wartime and military service that was performed during those “period of wars” for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress, which includes only the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, the Mexican Border Period, World War I, and World War II, for civil service credit purposes in Sections 3501-02, for RIF and in section 6303 (a) (3), (B), for ALA under Title 5 U.S.C.A., after Congress enacted PL. 88-448.
Regarding “the absence of a formal, statutory, or specific definitions for ‘war’ and ‘campaign or expedition.’ “Whereas, since Congress specified in P.L. 85-56, and codified in Section 101 (11) and (12), although under Tide 38 U.S.C.A., that a “veteran of any war” means “any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service during a period of war,” which demonstrates that the term “period of war” is Congress’s “statutory definition” for “war”; and
Whereas, since Congress did not specify the Veterans’ Preference restriction, entitled, “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions” in P.L. 88-448 for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit to nondisabled “retired members of any of the uniformed services,” for civil service credit purposes:
Therefore, Congress did not have to specify and codify statutory definitions for “war” and “campaign or expedition,” in P.L. 88-448, as prescribed by OPM in their rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, Chapter 7, Note Number 1, on page 7-31, wherein OPM prescribed the following in the first sentence: “In the absence of statutory definitions for ‘war’ and ‘campaign or expedition,’ OPM considers to be ‘wars’ only those armed conflicts for which a declaration of war was issued by Congress.”
During my research, I found several definitions of the terms “campaign” and “expedition,” which demonstrate that a “campaign” can never be a “>non-wartime< campaign,” in a “theater of war,” as prescribed by OPM in their rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, chapters 6 and 7.
The definition of the term “campaign” on page 42 in the 1986 edition of the Dictionary of Military Terms: A Guide to the Language of Warfare and Military Institutions is as follows: “A phase or stage of a war, involving a series of related operations aimed at achieving a single specific strategic result or objective. A campaign may involve a single battle but more often comprises a number of battles conducted over a protracted period of time or considerable distance but within a single specific theater or delimited area …”
* * * * *
It is important to note here that the seventeen “campaigns” that occurred during the post-World War II “period of war” of the Vietnam Era, were “a series of military operations with a particular objective” in the “Vietnam War,” not the “Vietnam Campaign,” as prescribed by OPM in FPM Supplement 296-33, Chapter 6, paragraph (3) (a), on page 6-14.
* * * * *
The definition of the term “campaign” on page 74 in the 1989 edition of The Facts On File Dictionary of Military Science is as follows: “A series of continuous field operations that is a part of a war: the period of time that begins when a military force leaves its home base to engage the enemy and ends when it return home—victorious or defeated. A campaign often has a single strategic objective and is often located in a single region.”
The definition of the term “campaign” on page 202 in the 1984 edition of the New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, is as follows: “A series of military operations with a particular objective in a war.”
The definition of the term “expedition” on page 85 in the 1986 edition of the Dictionary of Military Terms: A Guide to the Language of Warfare and Military Institutions, is as follows: “(1) A journey made by a military force from its base to an area where combat is anticipated. (2) A force making such a trip, including all its equipment and means of transportation.”
The definition of the term “expedition” on page 478 in the 1984 edition of the New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, from a military standpoint is as follows: “A sending forth or starting out on a march, etc., for some definite purpose, as exploration or battle.”
Initially, the service performed during an “expedition” can be a “>non-wartime< expedition,” if there is no engagement with opposing forces. The amount of engagement with opposing forces will determine whether the “expedition” will remain a “>non-wartime< expedition,” or escalate into a “wartime expedition,” which does, in fact, become a part of the “wartime” in that “theater of war.”
Whereas, resulting from the definition of the term “campaign,” cited above, which demonstrates, in general, that a “campaign” is “a series of military operations with a particular objective in a war”; and
Whereas, when a “campaign badge has been authorized” for “participation in, or service during,” that “campaign or expedition,” it was already determined that the military service that was performed during that “campaign or expedition” was “wartime service” in that “theater of war,” such was the case for the post-World War II “period of wars” of the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Era, and the Persian Gulf War:
Therefore, the wartime and military service “for which a campaign badge has been authorized,” cannot be construed as being performed during “>non-wartime< campaigns and expeditions for which campaign badges have been authorized,” as prescribed by OPM in their rules and regulations in FPM Supplement 296-33, Chapter 6, paragraph (3), on page 6-14.
Congress, in Section 202, Subsection (c), Clause (1) in P.L. 88-448, specified the following Veterans’ Preference provisions for crediting wartime service that was performed by nondisabled career military retirees for RIF:
“(c) In computing length of total service, an employee who is a retired member of any of the uniformed services shall be given credit for—
(1) the length of time in active service in the armed forces during any war, or in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized).”
In interpreting this statutory provision, you cannot overlook the conjunction “or” between the term “during any war” and the term “in any campaign or expedition (for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” which introduced the second of two possibilities; neither can you overlook the requirement “(for which a campaign badge has been authorized),” as overlooked by OPM in its interpretation. The two possibilities for crediting Veterans’ Preference credit, are as follows: