MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP57-00384R000400140076-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 5, 2000
• Sequence Number: 76
• Publication Date: November 12, 1948
• Content Type: MEMO

~
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RD -00384R000400140076-2
12 November 1948
MEMORANDUM FOR THE FILES
A call was received on 10 November 1948 from Mr.
Atchison of the le al staff of the Atomic Energy Commission
(Code 144 Ext. 317), request information as to how this
Agency interpreted Public Law 623 of the 80th Congress -- an
act to provide for p.yment of salaries covering periods of
separation from the Government service in the case of persons
improperly removed from such service. Specifically, the pro-
blem was wheth, CIA emplo ees, being under mule A, could
be considered within the classified service for purposes of
recovery under this statute. Mr. Atchison felt that
could not be so included, and wished to know how we handled
the situation. In support of his position fir. Atchison
cited the law of 27 March 1922 (42 Stat. 470) and further
support in 30 Op. A.G. 181 1913).
I suggested that Mr. Atchison call Mr. Klein of the
Civil Service Commission's legal staff for a ruling, which he
did. He then informed me that the Civil Service Cc nission
took the position that the provisions of Public Law 623 of the
80th Congress only applied to Schedule A personnel if they had
their om permanent Civil Service status or are veterans.
Mr. Klein pointed out that this position was sustained
by the Cosptroller General in a long list of decisions, includ-
o-). C.G. 849 6 Op. C.G. 534, 9 Op. C.G. 284 19 Op. C.G.
4 attid 21 Op. C.G. '17. Also applinable were Executive Order
9836 and remarks in Part 9 of the Federal Personnel Manual.
While this appeared to be the official interpretation
of the GAO the Court of Claims has evidently held that any
employee of the Goverment whether on schedule A or not, is
entitled to the benefits of pay if wrongfully suspended. They
do not agree with the GAO s no work, no pay theory, and there-
fore have allowed recovery in at least two cases. One of
these is the Elchibegoff case, 106 Court of Claims 541, and
the other is a Court of Claim case in 1947 or 1948 involving
Loren Wittner.
While the statute does not appear to cover the situa-
tion explicitly, it is probably covered by Civil Service Com-
mission rules. Inroads have been made in GAO's position by the
Court of Claims decisions, the Veterans Preference Act, and
certain statutory exceptions.
Walter L. Pforteimer
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP57-00384R000400140076-2