B-148353, JUL. 10, 1964
Highlights
RETIRED: WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 18. - THAT THEY WERE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THAT ACT. YOU CHALLENGE THAT STATEMENT MAINLY ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN PUBLICATIONS BY THE ARMY. WE ARE AWARE OF SUCH PUBLICATIONS BUT SUCH ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS DO NOT MAKE OR CHANGE THE LAW. WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT OR THAT YOU ACCEPTED CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT IN GOOD FAITH. AS YOU KNOW THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN CONSIDERING PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH WILL. THIS OFFICE MUST ATTEMPT TO APPLY THE LAWS ALREADY ENACTED AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR LATEST LETTER HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND NOTHING CONTAINED THEREIN FURNISHES A BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSIONS IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 9.
B-148353, JUL. 10, 1964
TO CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER HAROLD E. JOHNSON, AUS, RETIRED:
WE HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 18, 1964, REFERRING TO OUR LETTER OF JUNE 9, 1964, RELATIVE TO APPLICATION OF THE DUAL OFFICE RESTRICTION IN SECTION 2 OF THE ACT OF JULY 31, 1894, CH. 174, 28 STAT. 205, AS AMENDED, 5 U.S.C. 62.
IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 9, 1964, WE STATED THAT OUR DECISION OF JUNE 6,1962, B-148353, DID NOT PLACE TEMPORARY ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES WARRANT OFFICERS UNDER THE RESTRICTIONS OF THE DUAL OFFICE ACT--- THAT THEY WERE ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THAT ACT. YOU CHALLENGE THAT STATEMENT MAINLY ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS CONTRARY TO STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN PUBLICATIONS BY THE ARMY. WE ARE AWARE OF SUCH PUBLICATIONS BUT SUCH ERRONEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE ANNOUNCEMENTS DO NOT MAKE OR CHANGE THE LAW. WE DO NOT DOUBT THAT YOU WERE ADVISED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1894 ACT OR THAT YOU ACCEPTED CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT IN GOOD FAITH.
AS YOU KNOW THE CONGRESS HAS BEEN CONSIDERING PROPOSED LEGISLATION WHICH WILL, IF ENACTED, MAKE MANY CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYMENT AND DUAL COMPENSATION RIGHTS OF PERSONS WHO DRAW RETIRED PAY ON ACCOUNT OF MILITARY SERVICE. IN THE MEANTIME, HOWEVER, THIS OFFICE MUST ATTEMPT TO APPLY THE LAWS ALREADY ENACTED AS THEY ARE WRITTEN. THE STATEMENTS IN YOUR LATEST LETTER HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND NOTHING CONTAINED THEREIN FURNISHES A BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSIONS IN OUR LETTER OF JUNE 9, 1964, TO YOU.