WORKING MARRIED COUPLES - FINAL REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 5, 2006
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: August 7, 1979
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2006~172~05r c -RQP83-001568000600 309;15-3
7 August 1979
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. Clifford D. May, Jr.
Acting Deputy Director for Administration
SUBJECT Working Married Couples - Final Report
1. Attached is the final report prepared by the
working group which was convened at Mr. Blake's request.
In its report, the working group offers ten recommendations
for further consideration by Agency management.
2. I have prepared, and attached to this memorandum,
copies of the report for forwarding, with your concurrence,
to the following:
?Office of the Deputy Director for Central Intelligence
?Office of the Director of the National Foreign
Assessment Center
-- ?Office of the Deputy Director for Operations
?Office of the Deputy Director for Science
and Technology
?Chairman, Federal Women's Program Board
?Chairman, Office of Finance FINMAG
The latter two addressees have requested copies of this
report.
I have classified the entire report CONFIDENTIAL because
it contains occasional references to Agency assignment policies
and population information.
Distribution:
Original DDA
1 - Chairman, FWPB
1 - Chairman, FINMAG
 Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
 Approved For Release t11t7~ ~CIA~FQ3-00156R000600030015-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE -------------------------------- Page 1
INTRODUCTION --------------------------- Page 2-5
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ------------
Page 6-15
LWOP ----------------------- Page 6-8
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1
-------- Page 8
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2
-------- Page 8
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3
-------- Page 9
CONTRACT vs STAFF
EMPLOYMENT ---------------- Page 9
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6
-------- Page 9
-------- Page 10
-------- Page 11
LACK OF INFORMATION --------
Page 11
12
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7
-------
Page 13
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8
-------
Page 13
LACK OF AGENCY-WIDE
POLICIES -----------------
Page 13
RECOMMENDATION NO 9 --------
Page 14
BENEFITS AND ALLOWANCES ----- Page 14
NEPOTISM -------------------- Page 14
RECOMMENDATION NO 10 -------- Page 15
CONCLUSION ----------------------------- Page 15
 Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
PURPOSE
As a result of the identification by the Office
of the Director of Central Intelligence of a potential
problem regarding the assignment of working married
couples overseas, a working group was formed in
October 1978 to review the current policies, practices
and problems associated with working married couples,
specifically when either or both spouses are employed
by the Central Intelligence Agency. The working group
was comprised of representatives of the DDA, the DDO,
the DDS&T and the Federal Women's Program Manager.
Interviews were held with career management personnel
and with other offices directly concerned with the field
assignment of Agency employees. No interviews were held
directly with the general Agency population, although
the working group noted a deep interest in the subject
during conversations with individual employees. An
interim report was written on 9 November 1978. The
complete and final report is contained in the following
pages.
The discussion, findings and recommendations given
herein represent the opinions of the participants of the
working group and have not been coordinated in advance
with any office within the Agency.
The working group was provided materials and
information by the Federal Women's Board. That Board
has requested a copy of this final report.
nrtirnnrl Cnr Pahnnen )nnA/i,;P/nr, - rig-RnPR:i-00156R0006000 0015-3
 ..Approved For Releas IQe/V,/& rPI4-R F83-00156R000600030015-3
INTRODUCTION
A major and growing concern of both employee and
employer is the problem faced by both when the employment
requires the physical relocation of the family. What
has fostered the growth of this problem is the basic need
for additional personal income and relatively recent
changes in attitude of and toward career women. The
possible reassignment of either working partner in a
marriage to a distant location presents the family with
a major decision involving the family finances as well
as the career aspirations of one or the other spouse.
Simply stated, two careers and two incomes within the
same family with no possibility of relocation may provide
satisfying lives for both, but the introduction of re-
assignment to another locale for one of the spouses presents
major problems. Accepting the reassignment will reduce
the family income and, perhaps, end the career of the
other spouse, whereas not accepting can have a negative
affect on the career of the employee who declines the
assignment. The problem faced by the employer is one
of the employee mobility. By accepting the employee's
decision to remain in place, the employer must also
accept the resultant problem of reduced employee mobility.
What then follows is a setback to the desired goal of
selecting the best qualified candidate for a specific
assignment. The options available to the employer are
actually limited to three:
1) make directed assignments
2) create sufficient incentive to
relocate, or
face the problem of reduced mobility
as a new problem.
6
Annr y rl Fnr RAIaacA 9CIClCill CIO I
P83-001568000600030015-3
 Approved For Release 20 i,12P
':; crA-$Lq Q0156R000600030015-3
The working group found that very limited data
is available on the number of working married couples
within the Agency. It is doubtful that the true number
of working married couples within the Agency could be
determined short of an Agency-wide poll of its personnel.
The consensus of the working group is that the expense
of such a poll in terms of both money and morale is not
justified. Even if a poll were taken, the result would
most likely parallel the results of a survey made within
the DDO in August 1978. Those conclusions were:
1) there is a significant number of working
married couples within the DDO
2) the number of working married couples
within the DDO is greater among the
lower grades (from 6% at the GS-15 level
to 17% at the GS-11 level), and,
3) the problem is likely to increase as the
current generation of senior employees
phases out and is replaced by younger
employees with a higher percentage of
spouses working in the Agency.
Even in the absence of hard Agency-wide statistics,
the first conclusion reached by the working group very
early in its review of the subject was: the assignment
of working married couples is a significant problem
within the Agency and, without official recognition of
the problem and some changes to current policy and
procedures, the problem can only become worse.
If employees cannot be encouraged to relocate,
staffing field positions will become increasingly difficult.
A policy of directed assignments is not the best answer.
The real question, then, is whether or not the Agency is
doing all it can to provide a sufficient degree of incentive
for employees selected for a particular assignment to accept
that assignment.
A nnrnircr~l Prr Rclcaccu~ViY',`1 ? P.~, B11 A -(~f1flClflrifld0 Od1. -
1F R
 Approved For Release 200 1 1p tF. i 0156R000600030015-3
The working married couple problem within the Agency
has been traditionally centered upon the wife who also
works for the Agency but, with increasing frequency, as
women become a larger part of the working force, it
will affect husbands more in the future. Where, in
the past, the wife was a clerical employee, there was
a certain flexibility permitted in assignments. The
trend toward more wives gaining professional status
is expected to exacerbate the current problem in the
assignment of the couple to the same location.
It would be easier to make the point by offering, as
an example, the typical historical case of the working wife
who is an employee at Headquarters. Upon notification that
her husband is being considered for assignment to the field,
she seeks information about possible employment at the
husband's post of assignment. The first problem she faces
is the lack of a central point within the Agency for field
employment information. In addition, the accuracy of any
field employment information eventually obtained is usually
dependent upon the degree of attention, interest and ex-
perience on the part of the one giving out the information.
This presents the second major problem: weeding out the
misinformation to arrive at the true facts. The degree
of confusion and accuracy varies widely in the information
now being offered regarding official Agency policy, the
opportunities available to working wives for employment
in the field and reemployment prospects upon return from
the field.
Assuming the husband is interested in the field
assignment, the working wife must select from one of the
following alternatives:
1) seek staff employment at the same
location (usually not available)
2) opt for leave without pay and hope for
contract employment at the same location
(often unavailable but if it is available
it is usually at a lower rate of pay
than her current position),
3) encourage her husband to turn down the
assignment (at some risk to the pace
of his career growth),
4 -
Annrnv dl Fnr RPIPggp 2( ' I I b("i5s . "s AO ~ $ 0156R000600030015-3
 Approved For Release 200
fWA156R000600030015-3
4) seek staff or contract employment with
the Agency at another location,
5) seek other employment at post, (in
another field perhaps),
6) remain at home while her husband is
in the field, or,
7) resign.
Of the above, for obvious reasons, most would select
#2 above and hope for the best. This option is discussed
in greater detail later.
There is one general cautionary note that must be
borne in mind when seeking to improve the lot of the working
married couple and that is the eventual effect upon assign-
ments of single persons or employees whose spouses do not
work for the Agency. The assumption often made is that
working married couples will be assigned to the larger
stations where positions are more plentiful as well as
flexible, and that other employees may be assigned to the
smaller or less desirable stations. This concern must be
addressed in the assignment process to minimize any adverse
impact on other employees.
These general remarks indicate that with more
attention given to the problem and some changes made to
general policy, the Agency can make field assignments
more attractive to its employees. Other, more detailed
discussions on specific issues are contained in the follow-
ing pages.
- 5 -
r ~ r
Annrrn/arl Fnr RalaacP 90 871t'I~l~ ''(7[l1.riFiR(1ClCl6(1C1C13(1C115-:i
 -Approved For Release 20 2!.01- PA f pf 00156R000600030015-3
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Leave Without Pay (LWOP)
The unassigned working married spouse, failing to
locate a staff or contract position in the field, and
who wishes to accompany the spouse, faces the option of
either resigning or taking leave without pay. In many
instances, the spouse on LWOP has been able to work on
contract at the post of his or her spouse's assignment.
In most cases, and especially in those involving a pro-
fessional or clerical employee above the grade of GS-7,
the spouse working on contract has had to take a cut
in pay and often has been able to obtain only a contract
which limits employment, usually to thirty hours per
week. Taking LWOP has had other disadvantages as well:
1) The employee on LWOP to accompany the spouse
to the field has no guarantee of staff re-
employment upon return to Headquarters
or if a staff job becomes available at post.
In effect, the employee waives all re-
employment rights and guarantees upon
signing the "Memorandum of Understanding",
Form 3510 (Tab A).
2) The employee returning from LWOP, having
accompanied a spouse to the field, is not
guaranteed the same grade held before
going on LWOP. There have been complaints
in the past from employees who were rehired
at a lower grade than that held previous
to LWOP, and the reason most often given
was that the Agency did not make the nec-
ssary'effort to help the employee regain
the former grade.
q-S' . G} I
AnnrnvPri Fnr RPIPasP 9006l19/A ? rIA-Rf PR i-Clf 1 FiAR(1f(1F(1ffl i(1Cl1.Gi-:i
 .:Approved For Release 2006/1 l 6~ { 1 ;Q. -1d 1 R000600030015-3
3) While the Headquarters Notice 20-827
(Tab B) of 8 June 1978 is a step in
the right direction, there are other
LWOP problems which remain. The
requirement for interspersing LWOP
grants with assignments as a staff
employee of at least three years
duration gives the Operations Directorate,
in particular, much less assignment
flexibility that it requires. Operations
Directorate employees are frequently
not able to remain at Headquarters for
three years between field assignments,
thereby automatically disqualifying many
spouses from further LWOP. There are
also problems which stem from the require-
ment to complete two years of the new three-
year trial period of employment in order
to qualify for LWOP.
In cases where the working married couple refuses an
assignment requiring one of the partners to take LWOP, one
or both partners run the risk of being classified as "immobile"
with resultant detrimental consequences to their own advance-
ment and careers. Thus, even though both partners may
be-.willing and able to serve in the field, the fact that the
Agency does not or cannot find jobs for both at the same
location makes them career deficient. This may be the case
even though both may be very talented with previously strong
career patterns and records of highly proficient performance.
The only other alternative is for the working married couple to
take separate assignments. While this is acceptable to some,
most are probably unwilling to do so.
It is recognized that in many instances it will be
impossible to find positions in the same location for both
partners of a working married couple. In an effort to en-
courage these couples to accept field assignments, where one
member of the couple will be forced by circumstances to
abandon his/her career for the duration of the tour, the
Agency should consider amending its LWOP policy, as outlined
later in this paper. Subsequently, the Agency would be able
to accommodate better some of the unique problems of married
working couples which lead to reduced mobility.
 'Approved For Release 2006/1
7Rp . 3' il6R000600030015-3
U
VIT
It is recognized that the Agency cannot guarantee
continued employment to any employee, however, we question
the need for the spouse who takes LWOP to sign the
"Memorandum of Understanding" which, in effect, waives
all future employment rights.
For example, employees who take leave without pay for
maternity reasons or to continue an education, are assured
of their employment and the same salary grade upon return
to work after the period of leave without pay. However,
spouses who take leave without pay to accompany a sponsor
to the field are not given the same guarantee of reinstate-
ment to staff status at the former grade and responsibilities
upon return to Headquarters. They are, however, given "first
consideration by the parent organization for any vacant
position for which qualified." Even this statement in
Headquarters Notice is interpreted in differing ways
throughout the Agency y individual offices, resulting in
an uneven application of what is stated as Agency policy.
In other agencies there is no distinction between the
rights of those who go on leave with pay and those who go
on leave without pay; both have guaranteed rights to their
position from which leave was granted.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1: Agency management
should re-examine the need for the working
married spouse going on leave without pay
to sign the special "Memorandum of Under-
standing" (Tab A) as currently written,
and consider treating all leave without
pay situations on an equal basis within
the Agency.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: The Agency should
establish a policy giving absolute priority
on all vacancies to those employees returning
from LWOP.
re C IAL
Annrnved For RPIPa!;P 2006/1 I05 - CIA-RIlPB -001 6R00060003001. -3
 -Approved For Release 2006/1 ,ClA-E
a,.
ivs b._r
R83-Q~156R000600030015-3
I.. ir
,1 u 'l fir'
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: The Office of Personnel
should be tasked to provide information
annually to the DDA which would report on
the number of employees taking LWOP during
that year; the number subsequently employed
in the field, and in what capacity; the
number who were successfully placed at Head-
quarters upon return from LWOP; those problems
that arose in placing these employees; and
any other information that would enable Agency
management to assess the trends and developing
problems concerning LWOP.
Contract vs. Staff Employment
When a staff spouse on LWOP is hired in the field to
fill a full-time vacancy, the grade of the staff spouse
should be determined by the duties of the.position and the
spouse's demonstrated qualifications to perform the duties.
There should be no arbitrary grade limit.
If the grade of the position is lower than that pre-
viously held by the employee, the hiring component should be
required to consider PRA as a mechanism to temporarily
accommodate the employee. If PRA is somehow not feasible,
the hiring component should also be required to consider
m ar downgrading with salary retention 25X
for the duration of the tour. The Task 25X
Force be ieves that most Agency personnel with the potential
to be affected by these mechanisms are unaware that such
hiring techniques are possible.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: The use of PRA and
temporary downgrading with salary retention
should be explored and encouraged in order
to accommodate staff employees accompanying
spouses for the duration of the sponsor's
field tour.
Anorov .d For R .I .a 3-001 56R0006000300 1 -
4 1( E'F
 'Approved For Release 2006/12/05 lA 1568000600030015-3
If a full-time position simply is not available,
and the staff employee on LWOP is offered a contract
position, the Task Force believes that the employee is
currently at a disadvantage in having no precise counseling,
in advance of signing the contract, of the ramifications
and possibilities of the contract itself. For instance,
it is possible to have written into a contract that
Federal retirement benefits can be deducted from the salary
in lieu of Social Security, permitting the spouse to accrue
both service time and deposits into the retirement fund.
As another example, employees are often not aware that a
staff employee who accepts contract employment in the field
also must be recleared and reprocessed upon return to
Headquarters in order to be reinstated as a staff employee -
a potential delay of 30 to 90 days in EOD date. There are
enough ambiguities and questions encountered in the writing
of a contract in the field to pose some real difficulties
for the prospective employee.
When a position becomes available in the field, it
would appear to be more cost effective for both the Station
and Headquarters to survey the talent available at the
field location, including staff employees on LWOP, before
requesting PCS staffing from Headquarters. It is not clear
that this is commonly done at the present time.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: Agency policy should
direct that when a vacancy becomes available
in the field,: both Headquarters and the Station
should first review locally available per-
sonnel, i.e., Agency staffers on LWOP, Agency
staffers working as contract employees, before
requesting PCS staffing from Headquarters.
This should include those spouses scheduled to
arrive at the field location in the time frame
when the position will be available.
C /,- '\ 17- IDEMIAL
Annrnved For Release
006/12/05 CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
 -Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-0O 156R000600030015-3
While perhaps tangential to the problem of working
married couples, the Task Force had its attention brought
to the problem of wives who were not Agency staff employees
but who have worked in the field under contract and upon
return to Washington seek employment as staff employees.
For example, wives of Office of Communications personnel
often serve numerous successive field tours and may
have ten or more years experience under contract. Upon
return to Headquarters they must "stand in line with new
recruits" to process into the Agency, and await security
and medical clearances. The Task Force does not believe
that it is feasible to waive any of these requirements,
but suggests processing could be expedited and could be
begun in the field for these employees.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6: Spouses of Agency
employees with f ield contract experience,
upon applying for staff status at Head-
quarters, should be given preferential and
expeditious processing through the security
and medical clearances, and should have their
previous experience weighted into their grade/
step whenever possible.
Lack of Information
The Agency's working married couples are unable to
readily identify job opportunities that will permit them
to work together at field posts. The Agency also does not
adequately inform its working married couples of the options
available to them with regard to employment in the field.
Confusion and misunderstanding usually prevail as regards
the availability of jobs for spouses, part-time work, leave
without pay status, contracts, benefits and allowances, and
other policies concerning the employment of spouses in the
field. Moreover, individuals seeking information on these
topics often do not know where to go for answers.
Component personnel offices or personnel evaluation
and management staffs (PEMS) are normally the points of
contact for obtaining information of this nature. However,
the quality and extent of information available or given
in these offices vary widely. There are instances in which
a working spouse is told something different (in discussing
contract employment, for example) than is told to another
person in essentially the same situation. Often there is
Annrnv rl Fnr RAIAacA 2nnd i'Vrh* ti'A f~ R -n0156Rnnn6000 0015-
 'Approved For Release 20061(Q,{?
I ft, 156R000600030015-3
no information available at all on job opportunities in
the field outside of the station (i.e., in the Embassy,
in another official U. S. installation, in the U. S.
community, in the foreign community, etc.).
It is evident that improvement is needed in the
dissemination of information concerning all aspects of
employment in the field for working spouses of Agency
employees assigned to a field post. Additionally, there
appears to be a need for more extensive counseling fore
working married couples on their career options when
service in the field is a necessary part of the job of
one or both.
The Department of State, which has problems similar
to our own in assigning employees abroad, is approaching the
task of information/dissemination and counseling for its
foreign service personnel through two facilities: a Family
Liaison Office and an Overseas Briefing Center. The Family
Liaison Office provides a broad range of information for
employees serving abroad. It is also undertaking a job
referral role which includes a talent/skills bank computer
file of employee qualifications. Overseas, the Family
Liaison Office plans to provide assistance, information, job
referral service, etc., through Family Liaison Officers at
post. The second office, the Overseas Briefing Center,
provides information on overseas posts and conducts orientation
courses for employees going abroad and for those returning
from overseas as well.
Two options come readily to mind in considering ways
that the Agency can improve its mechanisms for distributing
information on employment in the field and related considera-
tions of concern to working married couples. One-"approach
would be to revamp current procedures in personnel offices
to enable these offices to render this service more adequately.
Another approach would be to establish a central office or
reference point to collect and disseminate information
related to employment in the field and to provide or arrange
counseling for working married couples pursuing careers
involving service in the field. A central skills bank con-
taining information on spouses would assist assignment
officers in matching spouse skills with available job openings
in field posts. A pamphlet or written brochure containing
information on contract employment, benefits and allowances,
and other information of concern to working spouses would be
useful in providing uniform and consistent information to
working spouses both at Headquarters and in the field.
ViGL" n Y ~~' Vi
C
- 12 -
Annrnvarl Fnr Ralaaca 9rlrfRll9/nr; ? ('IA-RfPR3-nn15OiRnnn6nnO3nn1 5-
 Approved For Release 2006/1 220 :_C~ RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
RECOMMENDATION NO. 7: A central office
or reference point should be established
within the Agency to collect and disseminate
information related to employment in the
field and to provide or arrange counseling
for working married couples pursuing careers
involving service in the field.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8: To clarify much of
the misunderstanding and confusion which
many employees now have, the Office of
Personnel should publish a fact sheet
outlining the types of contract employment
available and a brief description of each.
Lack of Agency-Wide Policies
One of the first efforts of the working group was
to identify current Agency policy on issues affecting
married working couples. This proved to be more difficult
than anticipated.
The working group was unable to locate an Agency-wide
general statement regarding the employment and assignment
of working couples. On other issues such as nepotism,
separate tours and LWOP, components were found to have
differing interpretations and thus differing practices.
Components outside the Operations Directorate appear to
experience an information gap on decisions affecting
field employment.
In order to insure uniform treatment of employees,
Agency-wide policy needs to be established in several areas.
The first step should be a general policy statement on
field assignments for working married couples outlining the
options, similar to the one adopted by the Department of
State several years ago.
In the future, it would be helpful if, when the Office
of General Counsel is requested by one component to provide
an opinion on a matter affecting field employment, that
this opinion be provided to all Agency components so that
all are operating on the same standard.
- 13 -
Annrnvarl Fnr Ralaaca 7flfl (M.4--I , -l 'FI &n15EROQO&n0O:3nn1 -
 'Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
1 -r.?
L
L1d;n
dL
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: An Agency-wide policy
statement should be published concerning the
field assignments of working married couples.
A proposed statement is attached. (Tab D).
Benefits and Allowances
Questions regarding travel entitlements and overseas
benefits are certain to arise in connection with PCS assign-
ments overseas of both husband and wife. Basically, the
working group concurs in the current Agency policy in
that both spouses should receive all salary-related benefits
and allowances but that benefits and allowances based upon
family status should not be substantially increased using
the combined assignments as the basis for the increase.
This has been Agency policy for some time and the working
group would not recommend a change. Should the rare occasion
arise which would require an exception to general policy,
current Agency regulations are sufficiently flexible to
permit the exception to be made.
Nepotism
One of the problems in assigning working married
couples to the field, particularly to small posts, has been
the restriction imposed by federal law which prohibits a
federal employee from hiring or promoting a relative, advo-
cating such hiring or'promotion, to taking any discretionary
action which tends to increase the -relative's chances of
being hired or promoted. The DDA published a change in
DDA policy in this regard which apparently applies only to
personnel within the DDA. The policy was published as
25X
DDA Administrative Notice
E
The working group was unable to locate an Agency-wide
publication on this subject.
AnnrnvedFor Release 20 UH !: ,F? [ F 00156R000600030015-3
 .. Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10; Agency-nanagemen . t
should review the subject. of nepotism within
the Agency, especially in connection with the
employment of spouses to the field where size
of the post of assignment may require that one
spouse supervise the other, and provide a single
policy similar to that contained in DDA
Administrative Notice NO. 78-11 which will
apply to all employees equally within the
Agency.
CONCLUSION
In order to be effective, policies regulating the
assignments of Agency employees must be altered to agree
not only with changes to the Agency's mission but also to
agree with changes within the societal fabric which affect
the working population as a whole. The working group has
been able to identify some of the problems and to offer
some recommendations for change but it also recognized
that: the problem of placement and retention of qualified
and skilled professionals, most of whom were selected
and trained at great expense, is a subject which deserves
the immediate attention of the Agency's professional
personnel and career management specialists. If no change
is made, the Agency may eventually be forced to lower its
personnel selection standards, both when filling positions
from within and when seeking new applicants for hire.
- 15 -
#r:TRR-nn1RR0006000 00
 Approved For Release 2006/12/05: CIA-RDP83-00156R000600030015-3
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY TAB A
Upon Being Granted LWOP to Accompany Spouse to a Field Installation
I understand that in view of the necessity to discontinue my
active duty employment*in order to,accompany'my spouse on a field
assignment I will be carried on Agency rolls on LWOP for a maximum
of three years; that my LWOP will begin upon the expiration of all
accrued annual leave and will terminate when my spouse reports for
duty at Headquarters after the field assignment, or at the end of
three years, whichever occurs first.
I understand that my return to active duty will be subject to
the availability of an appropriate position and will be at the grade
level of that position should it be below my current grade.
I a.`s~t'o understand that should no suitable requirement for my
services be found upon my return and availability for active duty
at headquarters my staff employment will be terminated.
Signature Date
EXEMPT FROM
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT