Whether Reservists Who Otherwise Qualify for Leave Under Both 5 U.S.C. § 6323(a) and 5 U.S.C. § 6323(b) Must Exhaust Available Leave Under Section 6323(b) Before Taking Leave Under Section 6323(a)
Background
- VA asked if reservists must exhaust §6323(b) before using §6323(a) leave.
- Statutory framework: §6323(a) provides military leave; §6323(b) supplements it with additional leave.
- §6323(a) leave accrues 15 days per fiscal year; carryover up to 15 days.
- §6323(b) originally added to alleviate hardship, providing supplemental leave for certain military service.
- 1996 amendment allows charging §6323(b) absence to annual leave or compensatory time, not sick leave; does not address sequencing with §6323(a).
- OLC concludes no exhaustion requirement; interpr. favors beneficiaries; relies on textual, historical, policy considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §6323(b) require exhaustion before §6323(a)? | reservist interpretation favors no exhaustion | OPM/DoD contend exhaustion necessary | No exhaustion required. |
| Is there textual or drafting history supporting exhaustion? | text does not imply exhaustion rule | legislative history suggests supplementation, not displacement | Extraction unsupported by text/history. |
| Did 1996 amendment imply exhaustion for other leaves or ratification? | amendment shows flexibility; not ratification | argues ratification of exhaustion | No congressional ratification of exhaustion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2010) (benefits statutes construed in veterans’ favor)
- Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp., 328 U.S. 275 (1946) (liberal construction of wartime benefits)
- H.R. Rep. No. 90-1560, — (1968) (legislative history describing supplementation of leave)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) (congressional discussion preceding reenactment)
- SNCC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (congressional ratification scrutiny standards)