B-152180, FEB. 20, 1964

B-152180: Feb 20, 1964

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Shirley Jones
(202) 512-8156
jonessa@gao.gov

 

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

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 26. IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION YOU SAY THAT SECTION 202 (11) OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN YOUR CASE. THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. THE QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF A PERSON WITH DUAL NATIONALITY WAS ONE OF NOVEL INSTANCE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO OUR OFFICE BEFORE. SINCE THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING FINALLY WHAT SPECIFIC CIVILIAN POSITIONS AND EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED BY THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949. WE DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THEIR VIEW BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION IN THE MATTER.

B-152180, FEB. 20, 1964

TO MR. LIONEL A. PETTY:

YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY 6, 1964, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTS RECONSIDERATION OF OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 26, 1963, B-152180, TO YOU, WHICH SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM FOR AN ADJUSTMENT IN SALARY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, PURCHASING CENTER, LONDON, ENGLAND, FOR THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 1961 TO NOVEMBER 1962.

THE FACTS IN YOUR CASE AND THE REASON FOR THE DISALLOWANCE WERE SET FORTH IN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 26, 1963, TO YOU, AND NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE.

IN SUPPORT OF YOUR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION YOU SAY THAT SECTION 202 (11) OF THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN YOUR CASE, AND THE MATTER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. THE QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF A PERSON WITH DUAL NATIONALITY WAS ONE OF NOVEL INSTANCE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO OUR OFFICE BEFORE. SINCE THE UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DETERMINING FINALLY WHAT SPECIFIC CIVILIAN POSITIONS AND EMPLOYEES ARE COVERED BY THE CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1949, WE DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THEIR VIEW BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION IN THE MATTER.

ALSO, YOU SAY THAT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES YOU HAVE NOT HAD A DUAL CITIZENSHIP SINCE YOUR NATURALIZATION BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ALLOW A UNITED STATES CITIZEN TO BE A NATIONAL OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY. SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 1066 OF HALISBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND, THIRD EDITION, VOLUME I, ALIENS AND NATIONALITY, PART 6, LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES, PROVIDES THAT NATURALIZATION IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY IS NOT IN ITSELF SUFFICIENT FOR THE LOSS OF BRITISH CITIZENSHIP. THERE IS ALSO REQUIRED A FORMAL DECLARATION OF RENUNCIATION OF SUCH CITIZENSHIP AND THE DECLARATION IS TO BE REGISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT YOU HAVE NOT ACCOMPLISHED A FORMAL RENUNCIATION OF YOUR BRITISH CITIZENSHIP. THE TAKING OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE RENUNCIATION OF NATIONAL TIES TO ANY FOREIGN STATE UPON YOUR NATURALIZATION IN THIS COUNTRY WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY DIVEST YOU OF YOUR BRITISH CITIZENSHIP, FOR THE MATTER OF DENATIONALIZATION IS ONE FOR DOMESTIC REGULATION BY THE GOVERNMENT CONCERNED UNDER ITS PARTICULAR LAWS OF EXPATRIATION. SEE COUMAS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 192 P.2D 449. THE MATTER OF DUAL NATIONALITY WAS RECOGNIZED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CASE OF KAWAKITA V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 717, AT PAGE 623, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT "THE CONCEPT OF DUAL CITIZENSHIP RECOGNIZES THAT A PERSON MAY HAVE AND EXERCISE RIGHTS OF NATIONALITY IN TWO COUNTRIES AND BE SUBJECT TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOTH.'

YOU REFER TO A LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IN WASHINGTON WHICH YOU SAY SHOWS THAT YOU WERE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION ACT FOR THE PERIOD OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT IN ENGLAND. WHILE THE OPINION EXPRESSED IN THAT LETTER MAY HAVE BEEN ADVISORY, IT WAS RENDERED AFTER THE FACT OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT AND COULD NOT BE BINDING IN AN OTHERWISE DOUBTFUL CASE. SUCH CASES ARE FOR SETTLEMENT ONLY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 236 OF THE REVISED STATUTES AS AMENDED BY SECTION 305 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 10, 1921, 42 STAT. 24, 31 U.S.C. 71, AND THE CASE WAS PROPERLY REFERRED HERE FOR SETTLEMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE. THE DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL ARE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE UPON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT. SEE UNITED STATES V. GILLMORE, 189 F.761; 31 U.S.C. 44; 31 U.S.C. 74.

THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPOINTMENT WAS TENDERED TO YOU IN GOOD FAITH AS AN ELIGIBILE BRITISH CITIZEN AND ACCEPTED BY YOU IN LIKE MANNER WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PERTINENT FACTS. ALSO, IT APPEARS THAT FROM PERSONAL CHOICE YOU DECLINED A HIGHER PAYING AMERICAN RATE POSITION TO ACCEPT THE ONLY POSITION THEN AVAILABLE IN THE PROCUREMENT FIELD.

IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE FACTS WE MUST SUSTAIN OUR DECISION OF DECEMBER 26, 1963, B-152180, TO YOU.

YOUR ADDED CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS DURING WHICH YOU WERE WITHOUT WORK AFTER YOUR SEPARATION FROM THE SERVICE ALSO MUST BE DISALLOWED IN THE ABSENCE OF LAW AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO A FORMER EMPLOYEE FOR A PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO HIS LEGAL SEPARATION.