*1 644 causes, generally
tion, other honesty bearing on or no direct little ”*** veracity. U.S.App.D.C. 940. F.2d at 383 127 prior Appellant’s should conviction doctrine. Luck excluded under pre- for new trial and Reversed for proceedings. trial Carliner, Washington, C., David D.
Mr. whom Messrs. Jack Wasserman C., Ralph Temple, Washington, D. brief, appellant. for SCOTT, Appellant, Bruce C. Farrar, Depart- Atty., Mr. C. Michael v. Justice, ment the bar of Su- Chairman, Jr., MACY, W. John Connecticut, preme pro hac Court of S.U. Civil Service by special court, vice, with whom leave al., Appellees. et Eardley, Acting Atty. Gen. Carl Asst. No. 20841. Bress, Atty., and Messrs. David U. G. S. Atty., Eldridge, Department of John C. Appeals United States Justice, brief, appellees. of Columbia Circuit. were on District Alan Messrs. Richard S. S. Salzman Argued Oct. Justice, Rosenthal, Attys., Department of Sept Decided appearances appellees. entered Judge, Before Chief Bazelon, Burger Judges. Circuit McGowan, McGOWAN, Judge: Circuit em-
Appellant, federal an competitive ployment passed the who has examinations, the second us for is before disqual- aside a time his effort set the Civil imposed him ification Macy, Service Commission. Scott 182 F.2d 121 349 (1965), Commission’s reviewed employ- all debarment of in the federal service “because majority A immoral conduct.”1 action view court were of the under 10,577, Rules Comp.), (1964), (Supp. The Commission’s plicant follows: [The Commission promulgated II, examination, U.S.C. authority 1967) amended, § and the Civil Service 218-25 Regulations, deny Exec.Order 5 (1964), U.S.C. U.S.C. deny an (1954-1958 provide § issued § No. 631 ap 5 C.F.R. remove an following moral, duct; appointment, Criminal, 731.201 reasons: [*] notoriously appointee infamous, dishonest, instruct [*] disgraceful [*] agency [*] im- *2 pellant question: upon asked “In view sustained could judg- of the information which has been us, cited directed and we before above, you you deny would have have be entered which ” engaged restoring in acts ? appellant to the status homosexual effect of for fed- considered response in made a detailed employment, further absent eral writing. length He set forth at the cir- arrests, to accom- the Commission valid action 1951 cumstances of the and disqualification. The plish his absolute denying any purposes homosexual acts purported to take such Commission has pointing in connection and out therewith but, action, for the reasons further pearing prosecutions no had resulted from hereinafter, find unavail- these arrests. He denied that he had ing. ever himself to former characterized supervisor having “perverted” or as as that, had a “lover.” He asserted in the neighbor’s case characterization Appellant’s disqualification “be- initial homosexual, him as a he had felt no conduct” was founded cause of immoral obligation under the circumstances to “loitering,” upon a a 1951 arrest respond. respect question the final investigation,” undis- arrest and “for having to whether as engaged he now denied ever indicating yoy closed “information acts, appellant in homosexual long Not our are a homosexual.” after challenged right the Commission's to ask decision, appellant was confronted with reasons, it for invasion various investigation a Civil Service right privacy, a lack and of rela- (1) report forth which set tionship question between the and fitness arrest, arrest, (3) (2) state- the 1951 perform work. alleged been ments to have made appellant supervisor when to a former Upon investigation report and in he was state it, response to the Commission homosexual, “per- had that he been disqual- made a second determination youth, verted” and he lived since adjudication ification. The basic inis “lover,” (4) appellant with a 1966, 11, the form of a letter dated March neighbor appellant had stood mute when from the Chief of the Divi- Up- Adjudication, portion sion of him as a homosexual. characterized critical margin.2 matters, ap- Ap- of these four which is set forth in the basis “(b) infamous, Act, Criminal, dishonest, section 1753 Civil Service (5 631), notoriously disgraceful immoral or Revised Statutes U.S.C. Regulations duct.” Rules and Service Civil gov- promulgated investigation your under these authorities results of in case persons considered, carefully into the ern admission of been as have your April States in civil service United statements the interview require your Service Commission letter of December fitness each candidate also determine Consideration character, given your among in other to comment or to provide things. furnish authorities These information as to whether or not investigation you appropriate engaged acts, your require applicant, deny and to failure to admis- request reported by you, sions of the to furnish made as Mr. possession necessary Keyes, during information the course of his conversa- you in 1960. These make matters enable your of his character and fit- determination to a determination 5.3) (5 Accordingly, light fitness. Reasons which in- ness. disqualify CFR of the competing vestigation your failure question you in Part examinations are listed as to whether or not regulations (5 engaged CFR have ever in homosexual Commission’s your give 731.201). Among the reasons well failure to a satis- factory disqualification may explanation derogatory be based fol- are the lowing: investigation, evidence adduced ruling February pellant appealed within statement of spect intra-agency unsuitability unfitness for of the At the first Commission. persons appellate level, the Diredtor a letter from 3 By Investiga- engaged have agreement acts.” Personnel Bureau of derogatory hearing motion tions advised that “[t]he during investiga- cross-motion, orally amend- formation obtained *3 you original complaint by adding for to ed his tion which communicated was against rebuttal, clarification, explanation, second cause of action directed by any adequately in- not been Commission’s renewed determination resolved you your disqualification, parties coun- of and oral- both formation furnished finding ly judgment summary moved for sel so as to enable to make a me respect you appeals Further to it. suitable.” Appeals to the Commission’s Board of appellant’s The District Court denied Review, and and to Commission it- mandate, motion to enforce the and self, gen- in resulted affirmances stated granted appellees’ summary motion for erally apparent in absence judgment. announcing decision, In grounds overturning for the decision the District Court first stated that “this Investiga- Bureau of Personnel Court holds that the Government has a tions. right person actively to consider a engages homosexuality in unfit for appellant In the District Court moved employment.” Federal It went on to judgment to enforce the mandate of the hold, further, replies [ap- “the resulting decision, from our and first pellant] to the first four the items directing asked for an order the Com- * * * plus [appellant] the fact that disqualify appellant mission not to “for simply outright refused to answer [the immoral conduct.” The Government justified question], last the Government opposition (to- filed an to this motion finding [appellant] was not fit gether with a cross-motion for affirm- employment by for the Government.” ance) which stated that the Commission had made a new determination that “it II [appellant] cannot conclude that meets urged prescribed In this court that he suitability and fitness disqualified had for a second time been service, standards” for the federal and conduct,” “because of immoral and that that this determination was not the Commission’s action in this flict with the earlier mandate. It at- continued to be defective. The opposition, tached certain Govern- exhibits to this ment, however, insisted that this one which was it characterized as the “CSC quiry you am whether Government to counsel unable to conclude that meet anything suggest: had further to the standards of fitness for competitive Yes, MR. ZIMMERMAN: Your Hon- federal service. There- merely point fore, applications or. I wish to out under consideration ineligible. when Your Honor stated that are rated unfit, him Service Commission found letter, 3. This exhibit consists of a dated they they did, is not what February 25, 1966, from the Commission they found that could not find that organization to an known as The Mat- he was fit. Society Washington. tachine let- Your Honor feel this is dis- meeting repre- ter refers to a between importance, tinction without but sentatives the Commission and the least should like to Society purpose enabling particular have it reflect is the present latter its views on the rela- finding they made. tionship homosexuality suitability correct, THE That COURT: employment, for federal sub- amend that think documentary mission of materials justified saying they could not Society support representations. of its find that he was fit. ruled, colloquy 4. After court had response occurred the court’s language appears ac- misconception the Commission’s critical of which happened supra actually tion, note 2. note that had We that what appel- ground disqualification therein ex- time around second solely pressly disqualified quoted subparagraph under cited and lant regula- rules and of 5 provisions of the 731.021 —the give ground refusal conduct” which sole basis addressed tions defending disqualification. testimony.5 Commis- earlier subparagraph action, There is disclaimed the Government no reference sion’s regulation (d) (supra the author- that same reliance whatsoever 5), provides independent ity disqualify immoral which “because of ground conduct,” disqualification the Commis- alternative insisted solely by testimony, judged reference sion must be furnish ground is the second determination ar- for its Government now the basis gues underlay ground upon its first. was the to that which sole which the *4 Commission acted. a cor- reflects formulation This latter review, language needlessly The principle administrative rect of of the letter is is, imprecise, by agree certainly it.6 with There contrast with the we accepted principle in this course, with ease it could have been made another which agency’s crystal that, action an clear without to field the effect reference to upon ground the judicially the “immoral conduct” must sustained be sub- by paragraph (b), being ref- appellant and not reason for which was dis- might qualified explicit authority have one which the erence to under say subparagraph (d), unable And are to not because he acted.7 we guilty reason acted for the to believed assigned by supply counsel on conduct” but he Government because would not appeal. key document the letter information. The refer to letter does 11, 1966, from the appellant the to of March to answer final Adjudication, question but, context, quite in Division the we Chief the Rules dockets the Civil Service in all courts. To the 5.3 of extent Section aspires provides applicants eligibles the to Commission the status of give independent comparable employment agency the “shall to to federal * * all information decisions are reviewed di- whose by testimony regard rectly appeals, in in to matters federal courts of the rules, laws, quired arising under the it would seem the interest both judicial system regulations bring the administered Com it and the to federal (1968). 5.3 § matter attention of the mission.” to the Con- Regulations, gress. in sub- The Commission’s paragraph (d) 5 C.F.R. 731.201 § colloquy 4, supra, 7. As the in note indi- independ- (see 1, supra) give as an cates, counsel, upon whom disqualification: ground of ent devolved the fact the mission of after testimony (d) furnish as Refusal to defending Commission, was alert the chapter. required by 5.3 of this significance principles and, the of these good lawyer should, got before now invited attention a as We record appeal that, although the fact terms District Court independent preferred ground action is from before us to characterize instances, Court, in most in the District Commission’s action. Even those disposition not, however, here, squarely in that is on court meet as saying ambiguity record the administrative inherent sub- basis principles stance, governed Bureau be as did the Personnel should judicial that, generally applicable Investigations, to the review because of the de- Dabney rogatory action. See information and also failure of administrative deny it, Freeman, be fitness cannot found. subject possible Why certainly there This is to the should F.2d derogatory that, construction infor- this character —once review of double being undenied, mation it is taken to here— and once District Court particu- question, highly “immoral conduct.” true to show is a days larly of over-crowded in these e., grant summary requisite one, judgment assur- unable to with i. reversed, judgment founda- ance that this was exclusive and a should Appellant’s disqualification. tion of effect be entered “which has restoring so, original status, likely, just appellant if not more seems to us Investigations say, deter- met the Bureau enlarged investigation requirements competitive mined that its examination port grade who, the earlier warranted a renewal of absent for certain any levels finding disquali- should be further action the Civil Service him, disqualify fied immoral How “because of conduct.” meaningful explana- else can there be be considered subparagraph agencies.” employing inclusion (d) subparagraph and the exclusion of reaching this result though adjudication in formal even us, nothing with before we decide are now counsel after fact told scope author- of the Commission’s ground the omitted (d), ity subparagraph disqualify under motivation of decision? (b). subparagraph One distinct gov- seeking Government insists mea- that we federal solely by great- sure the placed Commission’s action ernment under well be subparagraph obligation reference to the uncited er information communicate (d). however, conclude, We are unable about himself is not. But than one who appli- *5 the not in Commission’sdecision did federal it also be true that finding upon not, wholly fact rest a of “immoral cants Therefore, apart concerns, conduct.” current dis- from Fifth Amendment qualification rights privacy cannot stand.8 Where forfeit all of accorded to rights upon persons dividual generally by substance turn Amend- First whether ment, one Commission acted for and that the reasonableness of another, reason rather requiring than think it we certain answers to expect not too greatly by clarity much to that the Commis- affected sion will rationality sought not its policies leave clouded motivations by expression. inexactitude of by questions. ser- be effectuated Where investigators vice required are un- doubtless not disclosure is of circumstances being like intensely private personal rest of us to relin- slow of an na- quish a ture, arguably conviction of the correctness discloser entitled to is by an action know the standards revela- once taken which his for the reason it tions will be assessed. wholly was taken. If a new and different mainspring reason is to become B in the Government’s Exhibit action, clearly that should be made purports a District to be statement appear language resources of Although —and it standards. is fully up Thus, are to this task. this form letter from private a the Commission to a peal organization, its offer evidence must terminate as did the former supervisor appellant’s appears accept former as to al- The Government leged himself, principle characterizations includ- that “immoral conduct” in this ing highly ambiguous is at what most a context means the commission homo- unspecified position admission sexual acts. In view (2) challenge appeal, failure to taken Government this neighbor’s public perhaps a reference to him as we do not need defin- to decide itively unlikely whether, attempt, It homosexual. seems most on the second these additional could items be re- identified and Commission established garded meeting support as the burdens which such acts in such manner as to upon resting finding conceived of as Com- conduct.” We in our mission earlier regard, decision. however, this investiga- two new added items Macy, Scott report to what was adduced before (1965) (McGow- 349 F.2d (1) by appellant’s an, J., concurring). the statement then homosexual acts.10 The Commission it indicates deny pains either ex- that it is at some does, an authoritative to be considered can, private inquire into sexual policy. In pression of Commission long words, it deal- conduct. “[a]s its course, is area, is, private, it remains truly it deli- remains is ing difficult issue as with an participants, undisclosed all but the cate, precision in communication subject inquiry.” But it is not the of an Doubt- to achieve. correspondingly hard public fact, where for some it attracts reason the statement less because ask, pre- notice, seeming the Commission will anomalies full share has its sumably disqualify, if either there will contradictions. or an admission describes first In it the Commission Qualification a homosexual act. persons policy to be official its appears federal to turn thus evidence there is “about whom upon not whether one is law violator others engaged in or solicited caught. gets but whether per- sexually engage in homosexual We them, do not mean to diffi- minimize the without evidence acts with verted culties which the confronts rehabilitation, suitable are not area, including appear in this those which are employment.” This would federal solic- unnecessarily act or to mean manufactured for except disqualifying, as one itation inflexibilities on all sides. is func- entirely some practice at abandoned tioning public policy in a field where goes past. The Commission time in the something flux, is in with state on, however, concerned dissolving old certainties ones new tendencies, conduct, and in disposed unformed. to com- We number appraising it recites a conduct pound unnecessarily problems nor to considerations, “the it, inquiry foreclose reasonable but impact of the total importance we do note the and relevance degree least job,” which seems some policy of a clear *6 line to the demarcation only past but with consistent appropriate requirements. disclosure continuing present homosexual with by a remind- is stern acts. followed This judgment The of the District is Court though wholly acts, even er that such reversed, and for is remanded case contrary nature, private in are entry judgment in accordance jurisdic- virtually all criminal laws opinion. with this therefore, that, necessity tions, and It is so ordered. to be must be considered last, ap- it would conduct.” Under this BURGER, Judge (dissenting): Circuit consideration, only pear relevant just with which time, as contrasted For the second takes Court appli- enumerated, an is whether been action which the central —in- evades committing deed the in this case. or is now cant has been —issues offense, poli- Compare conditions social committed stated the Commission’s cy have contributed criminal which to violations of with rehabilitation, offense, any generally: evidence laws position agency for which the kind of shall and the The Commission Accordingly, applicant applying. applicant of each decide the fitness gathered after all the facts have .on its a record of law violations with applicant evaluated, is con- merits, taking if into account individual ap- offender, good his a risk seri- sidered nature such matters as the eligible. plication offense, be rated circum- will ousness occurred, Per Federal how Civil Service Commission which stances under (a) System, long ago occurred, 2—4 Section the of- sonnel Manual whether repeated (2), vio- Inst. Jan. an isolated or fense was lation, age person when he first, facts, undisputed record, must issues on this Those although approve applicant opinions, covered in the earlier Service Commission points: concern- bear restatement to the refuses answer salient ing re- a and reliable record of arrests before the misconduct; ports grave personal sec- disclosed that ond, power to has the whether this Court (a) “loitering” change a government policy 1947 arrest employment shown in proven context cus- which homo- admitted or makes tomary refusing police euphemism for an ar- sexual conduct a valid basis relating rest gov- to homosexual conduct to an for a Appellant seriously position; third, does not ernment has the Govern- challenge this; given Appellant reasonable notice to rejecting basis against a 1951 arrest was shown application. general background; the same ago years More than two a divided (c) Appellant’s ques- answer case reversed and remanded this tion of whether he was for re- the Civil Service Commission was that he did “not believe consideration, any guidelines but without question pertinent far so except gleaned what from two could be job performance concerned”; separate opinions and inconsistent (d) the Ap- Civil Service Board of Judges Bazelon and McGowan. peals responded Ap- and Review I dissented because I was satis- then pellant’s demand for details “of Judge suggestion fied that Bazelon's how, when and where” his immoral “vague finding” by the Commission1 finding— conduct had occurred Judge suggestion McGowan’s surely gave which him notice —that adequacies given Appel- of the notice convincing “the records disclosed totally lacking sup- lant were in record * * evidence [of] port. This, course, markedly dis- ”* * * conduct. Judge point similar McGowan report comment on fused to purports rely on, e., i. the Commission made avail- its actions has in some Appellant’s demand able to him. way concealed the true deci- basis was, course, hardly consistent now, my colleagues, sion. Both of then as position inquiry ignored stage every hard fact that job qualifi- to his proceedings the first — *7 ;2 cations peal deliberately cast this Court —was asking remand, Appellant (e) in terms of after that Commission assumption specified decision made that that on be on the it relied the two arrests, engaged he had in fact in homosexual statement of a former employer Appellant in the face conduct. How can it be said that had told anything perverted him he this that there was or was and lived with is vague, ambiguous about another male as his and “lover” uncertain being litigated Appellant’s respond what ? failure was noting majority Appellant 2. as an not that like a worth opinion place any litigant on entitled to assert inconsistent does not reliance litigant, Judge position prior However, Bazelon’s in the defenses. viewed as a opinions demurring “complaint” evi he is at once to a that there was insufficient particulars. light demanding a dence conduct. In and bill Appellant’s position litigation unsupportable argument remains as as it was then. turn on is to relating issue which the decision arrests questions to these loftily informs the reports; my subject matter, on notice the colleagues stages the course (f) critical lacking, is irrel- would Appel- litigation prolonged of this ob- evant? Justice Frankfurter once his claims has insisted lant “Litigation pursuit served that is the he assumption that decided on practical ends, game of chess.” not argues homosexual; he is a largely meaning majority rests its case “perverted” no word sought repro- always the Commission’s letter which is him, he had * * pertinent part duced in my real self “to true majority From myself this letter finds into some- pervert —not to ambiguity grounds disqual- to the thing whether am not” and that But letter must ification. be read was or not he was along employment. with all the evidence his federal irrelevant Appellant’s concession of homosexual Appel- any doubt there If was light letter conduct. of that the ma- his to stand made his election lant jority position Appellant left was private conduct claim that why rejected in doubt toas he was employ- eligibility for irrelevant beyond my comprehension. No one on when, dispelled on his ment, it was surely either side of case no one Ap- requested appeal, Board he really on this Court can doubt peals to why Appellant govern- has been denied engaged “ho- assume employment, e., i. his refusal conduct,” equate let me mosexual highly aspects discuss relevant “homo- conduct” “homosexual against background fitness of un- Chapter used sexual outlet” as challenged reports prior as to conduct. 610-666, Behavior pages of Sexual proposi- majority also rests by Alfred C. Human Male apprised of Appellant tion that Pomeroy Kinsey, B. Warded discharged. he for which was the reason Martin, Clyde “homo- and with E. Appellant letter But the sent responses contacts” as sexual one, but several stated 446-501, 11, pages Chapter used disqualification. As we have reasons just the Human Behavior Sexual the reasons was noted authors with Female the same failure to omitted.) (Footnotes Paul Gebhard. cerning personal none conduct. Since orderly every By underlying rule and denied standard facts were long procedure, Appellant one of the stated Civil Service so right probably a had a must be and this Court is valid reasons — duty and upheld at his word 5 C.F.R. take the law.3 if we follow —to postulat- 731.201(b) (d) (1968); see 5 the issue on the decide & § challenge disavowing explicit In the ed. face of this 5.3 While extraordinarily inquiries Appellant, I find it tent “to foreclose reasonable Judges by” Baze- difficult to how the conclusion understand expect majority lon to be taken the Government’s and McGowancan the right denies *8 seriously they suggest Appellant. in the when to secure answers —both however, prior opinions Court, re- Supreme here —that has The power inadequate peatedly of the Gov- notice of “the standards the affirmed by employment persons to which his will be as- ernment refuse revelations to Appel- questions does relevant sessed.” more notice who refuse to answer What suitability public postulated the lant to service. need when fitness or Cf., States, 3, N. L. Int. v. Council No. Woodworkers Gibson v. United U.S. D.C.Cir., 770, App.D.C. B., -, 569, F.2d decided R. 398 decided 403 F.2d 19, August 30, 1968; Reg. June Western States 652 County g., Angeles, may
E. applicant Nelson of Los v. control of the be unfor- 527, 1, 494 4 L.Ed.2d not the U.S. 80 S.Ct. tunate but it does undermine (1960) ; Willoughby, power Orloff 345 U.S. the Executive hire to 83, (1953); 534, employment promote 73 S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. whose will “best the efficiency” my public Garner of Los v. Board of Public Works service. Do Angeles, colleagues 341 U.S. 71 S.Ct. sub the now decide silentio that government employ L.Ed. 1317 or must deviates sex efficiency public that service suggest Judges I Bazelon and promoted doing by do so ?4 Or misconceive blur real McGowan questions may decide that not be asked question in this It is issues case. not by investigation if conduct should be whether homosexual veals arrests or association with known considered criminal conduct but whether appli- or criminals convictions which it is within the discretion of the Execu- cant did reveal? Legislature tive and the have an em- to ployment reports policy opinion majority reliable reveals applicant powers usurping homosexual conduct as to an its own it is employment govern- permit policy-making branches of require applicant to to to ment when tells questions. arbitrary, capri- parently by further way consolation, Is it that with or for the it, irrational cious sex deviates the Commis- deny eligibility sion, ask such or to applicant employment to an for federal public functioning in a field where when the refuses to answer and something of a state policy is in demands status be resolved dissolving flux, certainties with old assumption engaged that he in homo- ma- [theWe unformed. and new ones sexual conduct? compound disposed jority] are not unnecessarily to fore- problems nor my judges view is not for deter- it, inquiries but we reasonable close mine whether the Civil Service Commis- importance relevance policy policy sion is a wise sound when policy demarcation line clear policy Congress is authorized requirements. appropriate disclosure not forbidden Un- Constitution. guidelines der the meaning of Cafeteria and grasp Res- I am sure Union, taurant Workers F. Local A. this; speculate it can I would McElroy, L.-C. I. O. Workers v. 367 U.S. meaning takes read as 886, 898, power S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Executive over from the (1961) , the Commission’s “public action must be policy” on formulate arbitrary “patently affirmed “policy unless it is inis because sex deviates ” ** discriminatory.” majority fails something of flux. state adjustment meet case —in- this basic issue in the if seem to me that would deed it is not changing even discussed. mores that is needed policy. highly matter of sensitive deed Congress has authorized the President mandate from whence comes our But prescribe regulations such suggest policy this score make or even persons in the Civil Ser- policy of or our mandate to denounce promote efficiency vice best constitutionally branch? authorized investiga- of the service. It commands poli- Congress make Executive health, character, “age, tions into knowl- many * * *” reason- areas which cies various edge ability. Under policy But people unsound. able consider authority, disqualified judges. not the business general hearing, eyesight, infirmities major- health, puzzled experience. am even education and That more *9 ity’s disposition appeal: beyond human some infirmities Contra, 4. note 5 infra. certify compelled to personnel of- to be Scott give new Commission to
ficer? Is the hearing? is the What new notice and flatly refuses solution if the employ him ? George MELSON, Appellant, W.
v. al., Appellees. R. et Thomas SARD Washing- Bowman, Allen Mrs. Barbara No. 22105. ap- argued ton, C., the motion D. pellant. Appeals States Court United Circuit. Atty., District of Rauh, Columbia S. Asst. U. S. Mr. Carl Bress, U. S. David G. Messrs. with whom 15, Argued Aug. 1968. Q. Nebeker, U. Atty., Asst. Frank Sept. Decided opposition to the Atty., were S. argued appellees. Na- motion, Mr. Atty., Dodell, en- U. S. Asst.
than appellees. appearance for tered Judge, Chief Before Bazelon, Judges. Circuit Wright Leventhal, PER CURIAM: granting of appeal contests the This judgment in summary favor District pellees, members issue At of Parole. Board Columbia ability, the re- Board’s Parole against a indictment criminal turn parolee, aof parole- promptly execute a revoca- warrant conduct violator parolee hearing, requiring the thus in this present of his case or all some prior proceeding administrative charges.1 day criminal court on his be- indicated Subject to the limitations rul- low, District Court’s we affirm recently brought opinions prepared, to this issue was After these This Rodgers, Boxley Anonymous v. Fifth Circuit attention decided court’s Macy, (5th July 11, F.2d 631 398 F.2d Cir. entry 1968), holding (1968), due to mooted a Post em but was Office parolee. though guilty plea ployee’s See even generally Note, private, provided Revocation Parole a valid basis System, discharge. 56 Geo.L.J. Federal 712-14, 729-31