B-180364, JUN 17, 1974, 53 COMP GEN 966

B-180364: Jun 17, 1974

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WAS GIVEN TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT ON BASIS OF HIS TRAVEL TO THE ZONE AS DEPENDENT OF EMPLOYEE WITH TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT. HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE AND HOME LEAVE SINCE HE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF 5 U.S.C. 6304(B) THAT HE BE RECRUITED FROM THE UNITED STATES OR A TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE THE ZONE. HOME LEAVE UNDER 5 U.S.C. 6305(A) MAY NOT BE GRANTED SINCE THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE. WHO ENTERED SERVICE IN THE CANAL ZONE AND WAS GIVEN A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT BASED ON HIS FORMER STATUS AS DEPENDENT OF EMPLOYEE WITH A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT. WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE AND HOME LEAVE WHILE STATIONED IN THE ZONE.

B-180364, JUN 17, 1974, 53 COMP GEN 966

LEAVES OF ABSENCE - ANNUAL - MAXIMUM LIMITATION - EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE UNITED STATES - CANAL ZONE ALTHOUGH EMPLOYEE, WHO ENTERED SERVICE IN CANAL ZONE, WAS GIVEN TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT ON BASIS OF HIS TRAVEL TO THE ZONE AS DEPENDENT OF EMPLOYEE WITH TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE AND HOME LEAVE SINCE HE DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF 5 U.S.C. 6304(B) THAT HE BE RECRUITED FROM THE UNITED STATES OR A TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES OUTSIDE THE ZONE. FURTHER, HOME LEAVE UNDER 5 U.S.C. 6305(A) MAY NOT BE GRANTED SINCE THE EMPLOYEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE. CANAL ZONE - STATUS - "TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS" ALTHOUGH AN EMPLOYEE, WHO ENTERED SERVICE IN THE CANAL ZONE AND WAS GIVEN A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT BASED ON HIS FORMER STATUS AS DEPENDENT OF EMPLOYEE WITH A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE AND HOME LEAVE WHILE STATIONED IN THE ZONE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUCH BENEFITS UPON TRANSFER TO MEXICO SINCE THE ZONE IS CONSIDERED WITHIN THE PHRASE "TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS" OF THE UNITED STATES AS USED IN 5 U.S.C. 6304(B)(1) COVERING THE 45-DAY LEAVE ACCUMULATION AND EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO SUCH ACCUMULATION IS ENTITLED TO HOME LEAVE.

IN THE MATTER OF 45-DAY MAXIMUM LEAVE ACCUMULATION AND HOME LEAVE, JUNE 17, 1974:

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FOR A DECISION AS TO WHETHER MESSRS. DONALD M. PETERSON AND ALBERT W. CHERRY, EMPLOYEES OF THE DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY (DMA), ARE ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS OF ANNUAL LEAVE AND TO THE ACCRUAL AND GRANT OF HOME LEAVE.

THE RECORDS SHOWS THAT MR. PETERSON CAME TO THE CANAL ZONE IN MAY 1941, WHEN HE WAS 12 YEARS OLD TO RESIDE WITH HIS FATHER WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PANAMA CANAL COMPANY. EXCEPT FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1944 TO MAY 1945, WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES TO ATTEND SCHOOL, DOCUMENTS IN HIS PERSONNEL FOLDER SHOW HIS CONTINUOUS RESIDENCE IN THE CANAL ZONE FROM MAY 1941 TO OCTOBER 1948. ON OCTOBER 26, 1948, WHEN HE WAS 20 YEARS OLD, HE WAS EMPLOYED BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY CARIBBEAN COMMAND (NOW DMA, INTER AMERICAN GEODETIC SURVEY (IAGS)) IN THE CANAL ZONE AND HIS STATUS WAS DETERMINED TO BE THAT OF A LOCAL HIRE. SINCE HE WAS A MINOR, HE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO SIGN A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT. WHEN HE BECAME ELIGIBLE, HE WAS TENDERED AN AGREEMENT AND HIS ANNUAL LEAVE ACCUMULATION WAS CHANGED TO 45 DAYS ON JANUARY 3, 1952. THIS ACTION EVENTUALLY PERMITTED MR. PETERSON TO ACCUMULATE HOME LEAVE. ON MARCH 16, 1954, HE WAS SEPARATED FROM HIS POSITION TO ENTER MILITARY SERVICE. ON FEBRUARY 10, 1956, HE WAS REINSTATED AFTER BEING DISCHARGED FROM MILITARY SERVICE ON JANUARY 12, 1956. ON JANUARY 6, 1957, MR. PETERSON WAS TRANSFERRED TO MONTERREY, MEXICO, ON A PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION AND SINCE THEN HE HAS BEEN ON VARIOUS PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE CANAL ZONE INCLUDING HIS CURRENT ASSIGNMENT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 27, 1969, TO MEXICO CITY, MEXICO. BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 11, 1972, FROM THE ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CIVILIAN PERSONNEL, HE WAS ADVISED THAT HE HAD BEEN ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVING ENTITLEMENT TO THE 45 DAY MAXIMUM LEAVE ACCUMULATION AND TO THE ACCRUAL AND GRANT OF HOME LEAVE. THE LETTER ALSO NOTIFIED MR. PETERSON THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO REDUCE HIS MAXIMUM ANNUAL LEAVE ACCUMULATION BY THE END OF THE CURRENT LEAVE YEAR (1972) TO 30 DAYS AND ANY LEAVE IN EXCESS OF THAT AMOUNT AT THAT TIME WOULD BE FORFEITED. HIS ENTITLEMENT TO A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT AFFECTED. SUCH ACTION WAS MADE AS A RESULT OF ADVICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THAT THE PRESUMPTION THAT A TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT ENTITLED AN EMPLOYEE TO A 45-DAY LEAVE ACCUMULATION AND HOME LEAVE WAS ERRONEOUS.

MR. PETERSON INITIATED AN APPEAL THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES AS A RESULT OF THE AUGUST 11, 1972 DETERMINATION. ON JULY 20, 1973, THE GRIEVANCE EXAMINER ASSIGNED TO THE CASE MADE A DETERMINATION AND REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT:

1. WHEN INITIALLY APPOINTED FOR EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE CANAL ZONE, MR. PETERSON WAS A MINOR RESIDING WITH HIS PARENTS WITHIN THE CANAL ZONE. CONSEQUENTLY, HE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6304(B), SINCE HE WAS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE AREA OF RECRUITMENT. AS A MINOR LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS, HOWEVER, HE WAS ENTITLED TO NEGOTIATE AN INITIAL TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT UNDER JTR C4002-3, ESTABLISHING RESIDENCE WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.

2. ON 6 JANUARY 1957, MR. PETERSON BEGAN A SERIES OF PERMANENT DUTY TOURS IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES OUTSIDE THE AREA OF RECRUITMENT AND ON 27 FEBRUARY 1969 WAS ASSIGNED TO HIS CURRENT PERMANENT DUTY STATION IN MEXICO CITY, MEXICO. SINCE WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS A RECRUITMENT WITHIN THE CANAL ZONE, WE CANNOT CONSIDER HIM, IN HIS CURRENT AREA OF EMPLOYMENT, AS EMPLOYED LOCALLY.

3. GRIEVANT'S TRANSFERS TO AREAS OUTSIDE THE CANAL ZONE MUST BE CONSTRUED AS HAVING BEEN FROM THE UNITED STATES SINCE, UNDER THE TERMS OF JTR C4002- 3, HE WAS CONSIDERED TO HAVE RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES WHEN EMPLOYED.

4. SUBJECT EMPLOYEE IS ENTITLED TO A 45-DAY MAXIMUM ANNUAL LEAVE ACCUMULATION AND TO THE ACCRUAL AND GRANT OF HOME LEAVE SINCE (A) HE IS NOT A LOCAL HIRE IN THE MEXICO AREA, (B) HE WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE AREA OF RECRUITMENT OR FROM WHICH TRANSFERRED, AND (C) COMMISSION REGULATION 630.302 PROVIDES THAT AN EMPLOYEE BECOMES SUBJECT TO SECTION 6304(B) ON THE DATE HE BEGINS TO PERFORM DUTY IN AN AREA OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND THE AREA OF RECRUITMENT OR FROM WHICH TRANSFERRED.

III. CONCLUSIONS

A. THAT MANAGEMENT'S DETERMINATION MR. PETERSON DOES NOT MEET THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE LEAVE ENTITLEMENTS, BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, WAS INCORRECT.

B. THAT MR. PETERSON'S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE CPO DECISION IS APPROPRIATE.

C. THAT MANAGEMENT'S ACTION TO WITHDRAW MR. PETERSON'S ENTITLEMENT TO A 45-DAY MAXIMUM LEAVE ACCUMULATION AND TO THE ACCRUAL AND GRANT OF HOME LEAVE WAS IMPROPER.

THE FACTS AND INFORMATION CONCERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF MR. CHERRY IN 1949 AT THE AGE OF 20 IN THE CANAL ZONE BY IAGS AND HIS SUBSEQUENT TRANSFERS WITHIN IAGS TO CHILE AND PARAGUAY ARE CONTAINED IN HIS GRIEVANCE FILE WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THE SUBMISSION. THE SUBMISSION STATES THAT, WHILE THE FACTS SURROUNDING MR. CHERRY'S EMPLOYMENT VARY SLIGHTLY FROM THOSE SURROUNDING MR. PETERSON'S EMPLOYMENT, THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF MR. PETERSON ARE BELIEVED PERTINENT IN THE CASE OF MR. CHERRY. AGREE AND, THEREFORE, THE DETERMINATIONS HEREIN ARE APPLICABLE TO HIS CASE.

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE SUBMITTED:

1. WHAT ARE MR. PETERSON'S ENTITLEMENTS UNDER 5 U.S.C. 6304(B) WHILE EMPLOYED BY DMA IN THE CANAL ZONE?

2. ARE MR. PETERSON'S ENTITLEMENTS UNDER 5 U.S.C. 6304(B) AFFECTED AS A RESULT OF HIS TRANSFER BY DMA TO A COUNTRY OUTSIDE THE CANAL ZONE?

UNDER THE FACTS AS PRESENTED WE ARE UNABLE TO DISAGREE WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE VIEW THAT MR. PETERSON WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE CANAL ZONE BECAUSE OF HIS FATHER'S EMPLOYMENT THERE AND, SINCE HE WAS EMPLOYED WITHIN THE AREA OF HIS RECRUITMENT, HE WAS A LOCAL HIRE. THE REGULATION PERTAINING TO THE ACCUMULATION OF ANNUAL LEAVE AT THE TIME MR. PETERSON WAS EMPLOYED WAS CONTAINED IN 5 CFR 30.202 AND PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

SEC. 30.202 ACCUMULATED ANNUAL LEAVE. ACCUMULATED ANNUAL LEAVE MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR USE IN SUCCEEDING YEARS UNTIL IT TOTALS NOT EXCEEDING 60 DAYS: PROVIDED, THAT ADDITIONAL LEAVE UP TO 30 DAYS WHICH WAS ACCUMULATED DURING THE EMERGENCY PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 1939, TO JULY 25, 1947, AND WHICH REMAINS UNUSED, MAY BE CARRIED FORWARD INTO SUCCEEDING YEARS UNTIL USED.

THUS AT THE TIME OF HIS EMPLOYMENT MR. PETERSON IN 1948 WAS ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE.

UNDER THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951, PUBLIC LAW 233, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 6, 1952, 65 STAT. 679, THE ACCUMULATION OF ANNUAL LEAVE WAS LIMITED TO 60 DAYS FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND TO 90 DAYS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951 WAS AMENDED BY PUBLIC LAW 102, APPROVED JULY 2, 1953, 67 STAT. 137, WHICH REDUCED THE ACCUMULATION OF ANNUAL LEAVE TO 30 DAYS FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES AND 45 DAYS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OUTSIDE THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES. SINCE MR. PETERSON WAS A LOCAL HIRE AND IN THE CANAL ZONE AT THE TIME OF HIS EMPLOYMENT, HE WAS ENTITLED ONLY TO THE 30-DAY ACCUMULATION OF ANNUAL LEAVE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 102 WHILE STATIONED IN THE CANAL ZONE. THE ACCUMULATION AND GRANTING OF HOME LEAVE IS DEPENDENT UPON AN EMPLOYEE BEING ELIGIBLE TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS OF ANNUAL LEAVE. SEE 5 CFR 630.602 IMPLEMENTING SECTION 203(F) OF THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951, 65 STAT. 680, AS AMENDED BY SECTION 401 OF PUBLIC LAW 86-707 STAT. 799, NOW CODIFIED IN 5 U.S.C. 6305(A). SINCE MR. PETERSON WAS NOT ELIGIBLE TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS OF ANNUAL LEAVE HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO HOME LEAVE.

THE SEPARATION FROM MILITARY SERVICE ON MARCH 16, 1954, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT RESTORATION ON FEBRUARY 10, 1956, IS NOT CONSIDERED A BREAK IN SERVICE AND HIS REAPPOINTMENT DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF PARAGRAPH (D)(3) OF SECTION 203 OF THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951 (65 STAT. 680) PROVIDING THAT PERSONS WHO ARE NOT NORMALLY RESIDENTS OF THE AREA CONCERNED AND WHO ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT WITH AN AGENCY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE ELIGIBLE TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE. SEE 26 COMP. GEN. 488 (1946).

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OUR DETERMINATION IS THAT MR. PETERSON WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS LEAVE WHILE STATIONED IN THE CANAL ZONE OR TO THE ACCUMULATION AND GRANTING OF HOME LEAVE INCIDENT TO ASSIGNMENT IN THE CANAL ZONE.

REGARDING QUESTION 2 SECTION 203(D) OF THE ANNUAL AND SICK LEAVE ACT OF 1951, AS AMENDED, NOW CODIFIED IN SECTION 6304(B) OF TITLE 5 OF THE U.S.C. PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

(B) ANNUAL LEAVE NOT USED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES STATIONED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES ACCUMULATES FOR USE IN SUCCEEDING YEARS UNTIL IT TOTALS NOT MORE THAN 45 DAYS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST FULL BIWEEKLY PAY PERIOD, OR CORRESPONDING PERIOD FOR AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS NOT PAID ON THE BASIS OF BIWEEKLY PAY PERIODS, OCCURRING IN A YEAR:

(1) INDIVIDUALS DIRECTLY RECRUITED OR TRANSFERRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO FOR EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE AREA OF RECRUITMENT OR FROM WHICH TRANSFERRED.

(2) INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED LOCALLY BUT -

(A)(I) WHO WERE ORIGINALLY RECRUITED FROM THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO BUT OUTSIDE THE AREA OF EMPLOYMENT;

(II) WHO HAVE BEEN IN SUBSTANTIALLY CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT BY OTHER AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES, UNITED STATES FIRMS, INTERESTS, OR ORGANIZATIONS, INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES PARTICIPATES, OR FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS; AND

(III) WHOSE CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT PROVIDE FOR THEIR RETURN TRANSPORTATION TO THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; OR

(B)(I) WHO WERE AT THE TIME OF EMPLOYMENT TEMPORARILY ABSENT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAVEL OR FORMAL STUDY, FROM THE UNITED STATES, OR FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE PLACES OF RESIDENCE IN ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; AND

(II) WHO, DURING THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE, HAVE MAINTAINED RESIDENCE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ITS TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO BUT OUTSIDE THE AREA OF EMPLOYMENT.

(3) INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT NORMALLY RESIDENTS OF THE AREA CONCERNED AND WHO ARE DISCHARGED FROM SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES TO ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT WITH AN AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

SINCE MR. PETERSON WAS NOT DIRECTLY RECRUITED OR TRANSFERRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FROM THE UNITED STATES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN MONTERREY, MEXICO, ON JANUARY 6, 1957, AND MEXICO CITY, MEXICO, ON FEBRUARY 27, 1969, HIS PRESENT DUTY STATION, THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION WHETHER THE TRANSFER FROM THE CANAL ZONE MAY BE CONSIDERED AS BEING MADE FROM ITS "TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS" AS THE PHRASE IS USED IN SUBSECTION (B)(1), SUPRA.

THE TERM "TERRITORY" DOES NOT HAVE A FIXED AND TECHNICAL MEANING WHICH MUST BE ACCORDED IT IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. AS USED IN ACTS OF CONGRESS, IT MAY HAVE DIFFERENT MEANINGS, SO THAT THE SAME POLITICAL ENTITY MAY BE INCLUDED IN ONE BUT EXCLUDED IN ANOTHER. THE USE OF THE TERM "TERRITORY" BY CONGRESS MAY SOMETIMES BE MEANT TO BE SYNONYMOUS ONLY WITH THE "PLACE" OR "AREA." THUS THE MEANING OF THE WORD, AS USED IN THE FEDERAL STATUTE, WILL DEPEND UPON THE CHARACTER AND AIM OF THE ACT. WHERE CONGRESS INTENDED TO EXERT ALL THE POWER IT POSSESSED IN RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER, THE WORD WILL BE HELD TO HAVE BEEN USED IN ITS MOST COMPREHENSIVE SENSE AND WILL INCLUDE EVEN AN UNORGANIZED TERRITORY. HOWEVER, A STATUTE EXCEPTING TERRITORIES FROM ITS OPERATION HAS BEEN HELD TO EXCEPT ONLY TERRITORIES PROPER, AND NOT THE UNORGANIZED PUBLIC DOMAIN. 72 AM JUR 2D, STATES, TERRITORIES, AND DEPENDENCIES, SEC. 131.

THE WORD "POSSESSION" AS USED IN AN ACT OF CONGRESS, HAS BEEN HELD NOT TO BE A WORD OF ART, DESCRIPTIVE OF A RECOGNIZED GEOGRAPHICAL OR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, BUT RATHER A TERM WHICH SHOULD BE CONSTRUED, IF REASONABLY POSSIBLE, TO EFFECTUATE THE INTENT OF THE LAWMAKERS. 72 AM JUR 2D, SUPRA, VERMILYA-BROWN CO. V. CONNELL, 335 U.S. 377 (1948).

THE TREATY WITH THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA GRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES IN PERPETUITY THE USE, OCCUPATION, AND CONTROL OF THE CANAL ZONE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND PROTECTION OF THE CANAL, AND GIVES THE UNITED STATES THE SAME RIGHTS, POWER, AND AUTHORITY WITHIN THE CANAL ZONE AS IT WOULD HAVE IF IT WERE THE SOVEREIGN, TO THE ENTIRE EXCLUSION OF THE EXERCISE OF ANY SUCH RIGHTS, POWER, AND AUTHORITY, BY THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA. WILSON V. SHAW, 204 U.S. 24 (1907). THE CANAL ZONE GOVERNMENT IS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES, ADMINISTERED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY A GOVERNOR APPOINTED WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE. 72 AM JUR 2D, STATES, TERRITORIES, AND DEPENDENCIES, SEC. 135. AS SET FORTH IN THE CASE OF LUCKENBACH S.S. V. UNITED STATES, 280 U.S. 173 (1930), THE CANAL ZONE HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE CONGRESS, THE COURTS AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES, AS A FOREIGN TERRITORY, AS AN ORGANIZED TERRITORY OR POSSESSION OF THE UNITED STATES. FOR ADDITIONAL INSTANCES OF SUCH VARIED TREATMENT, WHICH NEED NOT BE DETAILED HERE, SEE 16 COMP. GEN. 515 (1936) AND CASES CITED THEREIN.

IN UNITED STATES V. HUSBAND R. (ROACH), 453 F.2D 1054 (1971), A CASE CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE CANAL ZONE TO ISSUE TRAFFIC REGULATIONS GENERALLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CANAL ZONE IS AN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES. SEE CONVENTION BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, NOVEMBER 18, 1903, 33 STAT. 2234, ARTICLES 2, 3; GENERAL TREATY BETWEEN UNITED STATES AND PANAMA, MARCH 2, 1936, 53 STAT. 1807; 2 C.Z.C. 1 ET SEQ. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT CONGRESS HAS COMPLETE AND PLENARY AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE FOR AN UNINCORPORATED TERRITORY SUCH AS THE CANAL ZONE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV, SEC. 3, CL. 2, OF THE CONSTITUTION, EMPOWERING IT "TO DISPOSE OF AND MAKE ALL NEEDFUL RULES AND REGULATIONS RESPECTING THE TERRITORY OR OTHER PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE UNITED STATES."

IN 15 COMP. GEN. 36 (1935) IT WAS HELD THAT THE CANAL ZONE "MUST BE CONSIDERED AS INCLUDED IN THE BROAD TERMS 'TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS' OF THE UNITED STATES AS USED IN SECTION 2 OF THE EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT OF 1935." SINCE THE RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO THE CANAL ZONE ARE ALL INCLUSIVE, AND THE TERRITORY IS SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS AS MAY BE MADE APPLICABLE THERETO BY THE CONGRESS, IT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS INCLUDED IN THE BROAD TERM "TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS" OF THE UNITED STATES AS USED IN 5 U.S.C. 6304(B)(1).

INASMUCH AS WE CONSIDER THE CANAL ZONE TO COME WITHIN THE PHRASE "TERRITORIES OR POSSESSIONS" OF THE UNITED STATES AS USED IN 5 U.S.C. 6304(B)(1), MR. PETERSON UPON TRANSFER TO MEXICO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY, BECAME ELIGIBLE TO ACCUMULATE 45 DAYS ANNUAL LEAVE AND TO ACCUMULATE AND BE GRANTED HOME LEAVE. QUESTION NUMBER 2 IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.