VETERANS PREFERENCE ACT - APPLICABILITY TO CIA

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP60-00442R000100130001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 24, 2002
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 2, 1957
• Content Type: MF

Approved For ReleasffR04 1 -FWPP0 P 00010013UOU1-9
2 May 1957
LEG
25X1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Houston
SUBJECT : Veterans' Preference Act - Applicability to CIA
1. The Veterans' Preference Act places veterans in a preferred
position in regard to separation from Federal employment in cases
of reductions in force. In addition, the Act and the Civil Service
Commission's regulations prescribed thereunder, set up reduction in
force procedures and employee preferences therein which cover non-
veterans as well as veterans. This Agency has, as a matter of practice,
followed the requirements of the Vet LEG
to termination, re-employment refprennp Ant. in rP-crq--rA L~
e ere s civil no reso u on o ve LEGL
question whether or not the Act is a licab e to the Agency,
v. weeks ose cases are c er
in which the separation was based u on authority in
the Department of Commerce Appropriation Act of 1953 ((66 Stat.549, 567),
and Service v. Dulles (Tab B), in which the separation was based upon
authority in the Department of State Appropriation Act of 1950 (63 Stat.
447, !+56). Although the question of veterans' preference did not arise
in either case, the court in each case held that the statutory language
left absolute discrimination in the head of the Department and the
reasons for the exercise of his discretion were immaterial. The ruling
in the Service case seems particularly important because the Secretary
of State admittedly exercised his discretion to separate Service because
of a finding of the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Board which was
held by the court to be a nullity. A Supreme Court decision on the
S a rvice case is pending, but because of the peculiar facts in regard
to the Loyalty Board fin i
3. In Myers v. Hollister (Tab C), the separation of a veterans'
preference eligible under a special authority in the Mutual Security
Approved For ReM
LEGL
1 25X1
 Act of 1952 was upheld by the court. It is probable that Mr. Donald B.
MacGuineas, who expressed the informal opinion of the Department of
Justice mentioned in paragraph one above, based his opinion on the
finding of the court in the Dyers' case. There the court held that
the special statutory authority granted to the Director of Mutual Security
overcame the Veterans' Preference Act which occupied the position of a LEG L
25X1
1. Another point of interest in the Scher and Service cases is
the statement of the court in each case that it should be noted that
Appellant's discharge carries no implication that he might be either
25X1
LEG
25X1A
25X1A
0
0
0
-2-
Approved For Release 2002/10/10: CIA-RDP60- 428000100130001-9
 25X1A
Approved For Release ..& . riAA 100130001-9
(Discrimination in Employment). It is doubtful that any harm is done
by the omissions, but consideration should be given to including a
reference to in each. .,cv4 n n n
25X1A
25X1A
6. The most noteworthy omission in the series of regulations on
separation is one on reduction in force procedures.
the Office of Personnel advises that several years ago a proposed regu-
lation on this subject was drafted but for various reasons, including
the problem of the rumors which such a regulation might start, it was
filed without action. Both 0 paragraph B(2)(a) and proposed
paragraph 2 make reference to veterans' preference and
reductions in force and in doing so at least infer that Civil Service
Commission regulations are controlling in such cases. This raises
a question as to whether or not we should delete such references from
our regulations in order to give us a freer hand in reductions in force LEG
and veterans' preference cases when we may not desire to follow Civil
Service Commission procedures. This is not to say that the referenced L 25X1
regulations would preclude separations in such cases under Section 102(c)
of the National Security Act, especially in view of the several court
-rulings on similar statutory authorities mentioned ahnve-1
25X1A9A
-3-
Approved For Rele 2 jC147,1 P -004428000100130001-9
Ulti