was processed on December 6, 1943, stating that Mr. Rob R. Slocum's optional retirement became effective March 21, 1944, and that his last day of actual duty was December 17, 1943, at 2:15 p. m. On December 9, 1943, a personnel transaction amending the one dated December 6, 1943, was issued, the only change being that Mr. Slocum was to be carried on accrued annual leave until March 31, 1944, close of business, instead of March 21, 1944, close of business.

On January 6, 1944, Mr. Slocum executed United States Civil Service Commission Form No. 3001, Application for Annuity, in the presence of the administrative officer and the administrative assistant of the Dairy and Poultry Branch. This application was sent to the United States Civil Service Commission on January 18, 1944.

On March 1, 1944, Mr. Slocum signed the following statement addressed to the War Food Administration, Office of Distribution, Personnel Division:

"I desire to waive all rights to any accrued annual leave to me after January 31, 1944, in order that my optional retirement may become effective February 1, 1944."

[Witnessed by Helen M. Krahling, and E. M. Bayliss. Both were and still are employed by this Department.]

Mr. Slocum died on March 3, 1944, 2 days after the above statement was executed. Immediately thereafter the Personnel Division consulted the Retirement Division of the United States Civil Service Commission and was informed that the effective date of the optional retirement could not legally be changed retroactively from March 31, 1944, to close of business January 31, 1944. For that reason, the optional retirement action was cancelled and an official personnel transaction, Termination of Appointment (Death), was issued, effective March 3, 1944.

This action was based upon Comptroller General's decision B-19311, August 15, 1941 (21 Comp. Gen. 135) which states that if an employee applies for and is administratively granted all or any portion of the annual sick leave to his credit prior to retirement, the termination date of his active duty or pay status thereby becomes fixed and there is no authority to change the record retroactively so as to advance the beginning date of the retirement annuity.

On January 30, 1945, Mr. Lyle B. Shanks, administrative officer, and Miss Thelma E. Olson, administrative assistant of the Dairy and Poultry Branch, executed the following affidavit in support of an appeal to be made by Mrs. Mabel H. Slocum with the Board of Appeals and Review of the United States Civil Service Commission in connection with her claim for joint and survivorship annuity because of the death of her husband, Mr. Rob R. Slocum:

"On January 6, 1944, Mr. Rob R. Slocum called at the Administrative Office of the Dairy and Poultry Branch and prepared Form 3001, Application for Annuity, indicating his desire to elect option C, which provides for joint and survivorship annuity. Since it was impossible to ascertain in this office, or verify through the Personnel Division, the rates under this option, Mr. Slocum indicated a desire to have information concerning the rates furnished him by the Civil Service Commission.

We witnessed the signing of this application and thoroughly understood that it was Mr. Slocum's definite desire to receive the joint and survivorship annuity under option C. It is our opinion that his request, which was made a part of the application, for information on rates under option C is conclusive evidence of Mr. Slocum's election of this option."

On April 2, 1945, Mrs. Slocum executed her personal check in the amount of $545.24 payable to the Treasury of the United States, this amount being the salary payments made to Mr. Rob R. Slocum for the period from February 1, 1944, through March 3, 1944. This check was deposited in account 12F5875.470, Special Deposits, Suspense, Department of Agriculture, on Office of Marketing Services schedule of collections No. 1710, dated April 6, 1944.

On August 3, 1945 this Department was advised by the United States Civil Service Commission that Mrs. Rob R. Slocum's claim for survivorship annuity because of the death of her husband had been rejected by their board of appeals and review on July 9, 1945, and that the case was considered closed.

Mr. Rob R. Slocum indicated his desire to accept optional retirement under option C, and requested that his retirement date be established as of close of business January 31, 1944, prior to his death, and his widow, Mrs. Rob R. Slocum, has refunded the salary payments for the period of February 1, 1944 through March 3, 1944. It is clear that it was Mr. Rob R. Slocum's expressed intention to have Mrs. Slocum receive an annuity in the event he predeceased her.

This office has no information as to the probable cost to the Government if H. R. 1315 is approved inasmuch as the amount of the survivorship annuity payable to Mrs. Slocum would be computed by the Retirement Division of the United States Civil Service Commission.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that the enactment of this bill would not be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely.

N. E. DODD, Acting Secretary.

Hon. EARL C. MICHENER,

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington 25, D. C., May 29, 1947

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. MICHENER: Further reference is made to your communication of April 16, 1947, relative to H. R. 1315, a bill for the relief of Mabel H. Slocum. The proposal provides that the Civil Service Commission is directed to pay to Mabel H. Slocum, widow of Rob R. Slocum, formerly an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, an annuity equal in amount to the annuity which she would have been entitled to receive had his retirement become effective on January 31, 1944, and had he elected in writing, at the time of such retirement, to receive a reduced annuity payable after his death to Mabel H. Slocum as surviving beneficiary.

Section 4 (d) of the Civil Service Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended to August 4, 1939, reads as follows:

"Any employee retiring under the provisions of section 1 of this Act may at the time of his retirement elect to receive in lieu of the life annuity described herein a reduced annuity payable to him during his life, and an annuity after his death payable to his beneficiary, duly designated in writing and filed with the Civil Service Commission at the time of his retirement, during the life of such beneficiary (a) equal to or (b) 50 per centum of such reduced annuity and upon the death of such surviving beneficiary all payments shall cease and no further annuity shall be due or payable. The amounts of the two annuities shall be such that their combined actuarial value on the date of retirement as determined by the Civil Service Commission shall be the same as the actuarial value of the single life increased annuity with forefeiture provided by this section: Provided, That no election in lieu of the life annuity provided herein shall become effective in case an employee dies within thirty days after the effective date of retirement, and in the event of such death within this period, such death shall be considered as a death in active service."

On January 6, 1944, Mr. Slocum executed an application for optional retirement under the terms of section 1 (b) of the act of May 29, 1930, as amended, to become effective March 31, 1944. The War Food Administration transmitted Mr. Slocum's application for annuity to the Commission on January 18, 1944, with the statement that he had elected optional retirement to be effective March 31, 1944. Mr. Slocum did not fully comply with instructions listed under question 14 regarding type of annuity desired, but stated: "Unable to make election without information on rates under option C." He indicated the name of his wife, Mabel H. Slocum, on the bottom of the application as his survivor annuitant. On March 1, 1944, Mr. Slocum prepared a statement waiving his rights to accrued annual leave for February 1944, so that his optional retirement might commence February 1, 1944. The retirement clerk of the War Food Administration, Office of Distribution, Personnel Division, advised the Commission on April 25, 1944, that Mr. Slocum's claim for optional retirement, effective March 31, 1944, was canceled due to death occurring on March 3, 1944. His retirement account, certified by the War Food Administration, was received in the Commission on May 6, 1944, disclosing that salary was paid him up to and including the date of his death, March 3, 1944.

Section 2.4 of Executive Order 9414, effective January 1, 1944, provides that an employee who is to be separated from the service shall be entitled to the unused annual leave standing to his credit, and the date of his separation shall be so fixed as to permit him to take such leave, and in no case, whether the separation be voluntary or involuntary, shall the separation become effective on a date prior to the date of termination of such leave, provided that an employee who elects to forfeit the leave standing to his credit may do so by filing a written

notice to such effect. The War Food Administration informally advised the Retirement Division on April 11, 1945, that Mr. Slocum's leave was effective at 2:14 p. m. on December 18, 1943, and was to continue through March 31, 1944. His death on March 3, 1944, terminated the balance of the leave due him. Mr. Slocum, by filing his statement on March 1, 1944, only intended to waive leave for the month of February, which he had already taken.

In 21 Comp. Gen. 135, Comptroller General Warren held that if an employee applies for and is administratively granted all or any portion of the annual and/or sick leave to his credit prior to retirement for disability, the termination date of his active duty or pay status thereby becomes fixed; and unless an error was made in the amount of the leave due the employee, there is no authority in the administrative office or in the Civil Service Commission to change the record retroactively effective so as to advance the beginning date of the retirement annuity. Thus, if the active duty or pay status of an employee terminates at any time during a month, whether he was actually working or on leave of absence with pay administratively approved, immediately preceding the termination of his service, the effective date of his annuity is fixed by the act of April 23, 1930, supra, as the first day of the following month; and such date may not be advanced to the first day of the preceding month simply by changing the record of service of the employee contrary to the actual facts-such as by canceling leave already granted and paid for or by canceling a check issued in payment for services actually rendered-so as to show the effective date of the termination of active duty or pay status as in a preceding month.

In the instant case, even though Mr. Slocum submitted a statement showing he desired the effective date of his retirement to be February 1, 1944, he endorsed the salary check received for the first half of that month while in a leave-with-pay status. The check for the latter part of February was also cashed upon the statement of an employee of the Department of Agriculture that it could be refunded at a later date. The Department of Agriculture certified on his retirement account that he was paid to March 3, 1944, the date of his death, which indicates he does not meet the 30-day period as required in section 4 (d) of the retirement act.

It was the decision of the Commission that the Department of Agriculture could not retroactively change its records in order to advance the decedent's separation to the first day of the preceding month in order to enable Mrs. Slocum to become a survivor annuitant.

Special legislation which would grant Mrs. Slocum the benefits of the act of August 4, 1939, effective January 1, 1940, would undoubtedly establish a precedent which would open the way for numerous other similar claims of equal merit. The Commission has consistently recommended against the enactment of private relief legislation which would grant annuity benefits in a particular case to which other persons similarly situated are not entitled. The Commission, therefore, recommends that adverse action be taken on H. R. 1315.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there would be no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Very sincerely yours,

Hon. LANSDALE G. SASSCER,

HARRY B. MITCHELL, President
(By direction of the Commission).

WASHINGTON 12, D. C., July 21, 1947.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SASSCER: This letter is in reference to H. R. 1315, a bill for the relief of Mabel H. Slocum, introduced by you on January 23, 1947, and a letter dated May 29, 1947, by Harry B. Mitchell, President of the United States Civil Service Commission, addressed to Hon. Earl C. Michener, chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.

President Mitchell, in his letter, comments on certain aspects of the case and reviews the procedures employed and applied by the War Food Administration and the United States Civil Service Commission in the handling of Mr. Slocum's application for optional retirement. However, he omits reference to and mention of certain pertinent elements and facts in the case which when given their due and proper consideration amply justify a positive and favorable action by the Commission on the amended application for optional retirement filed by Mr. Slocum and also on H. R. 1315.

In the fourth paragraph of President Mitchell's letter he states:

1. On January 6, 1944, Mr. Slocum executed an application for optional retirement to become effective March 31, 1944.

2. On March 1, 1944, Mr. Slocum prepared and filed a statement amending his application for optional retirement in which he waived his rights to accrued leave for February and March 1944 and fixed the date his optional retirement would commence as February 1, 1944.

3. On April 25, 1944 the retirement clerk of the War Food Administration advised the Commission that Mr. Slocum's amended application for optional retirement, effective on February 1, 1944, was canceled, due to death occurring on March 3, 1944.

In the fifth paragraph of his letter, President Mitchell recited from section 2.4 of Executive Order 9414, effective January 1, 1944, that an employee who elects to forfeit the leave standing to his credit (whether the separation be voluntary or involuntary) may do so by filing a written notice to such effect. It is readily obvious that Mr. Slocum was acting clearly and entirely within his rights when he, on March 1, 1944, prepared and filed a statement in which he waived his rights to accrued annual leave for February and March 1944 and fixed the date his optional retirement would commence as February 1, 1944, It is not obvious from any facts or information contained in President Mitchell's letter that the retirement clerk of the War Food Administration or any one else in that Adminis tration or any other one in the United States Civil Service Cmmission had any administrative or other authority to ignore and cancel the rights of Mr Slocum to amend his application for retirement nor to invalidate, cancel, or destroy the effect of the statement he prepared and submitted waiving his accrued leave for February and March, and fixing the date his optional retirement would com mence as of February 1, 1944. Rather, the action of the retirement clerk of the War Food Administration, in advising the Commission that he had canceled Mr. Slocum's application for optional retirement, was taken without due suthority therefor and was entirely an arbitrary act which was entirely unwarranted. unjustified, and improper. The fact that Mr. Slocum died on March 3, 1944, which was more than 30 days later than the date Mr. Slocum had fixed for his retirement to commence certainly could not be taken as a just and proper basis for canceling the document which he prepared and filed as an amendment to his application for optional retirement. Yet this is apparently what the retirement clerk of the War Food Administration did.

In his letter President Mitchell, in the sixth paragraph, refers to a decision rendered by Comptroller General Warren (21 Comp. Gen. 135) in which the termination date of active duty of an employee retired for disability becomes fixed by the application for and the administratively granting of all or any portion of the annual and/or sick leave to his credit prior to his retirement for disability. This decision clearly applies only and solely to employees retired for disability, and it does not apply to the Slocum case for his retirement was voluntary and optional. Furthermore, section 2.4 of Executive Order 9414 (referred to in the preceding paragraph) gave Mr. Slocum the right to waive any unused leave, and to fix the date of his retirement by specifying it in his application for retirement, or in any amendment thereto filed in writing subsequent to the date of his original application.

Reference is made in President Mitchell's letter to advices given to Mr. Slocum by an employee of the Department of Agriculture that the amounts of the pay checks issued to him by that Department for February 1944 could be refunded at a later date. Mr. Mitchell does not mention the fact that those amounts were promptly refunded to the United States Treasury, through the Department of Agriculture, upon receipt of advices from the Department of Agriculture of the proper amount that should be refunded.

It is apparent from President Mitchell's letter that the Civil Service Commission:

1. Denied the War Food Administration the right to give proper recognition and validity to the statement prepared and filed by Mr. Slocum on March 1 1944, by which he forfeited all leave standing to his credit subsequent to January 31, 1944, and wherein he fixed the effective date of his retirement as February 1, 1944.

2. Denied the Department of Agriculture the right to correct and complete its pay records and its leave records for Mr. Slocum to accord with (1) the action of Mr. Slocum in amending his application for retirement by his written statement of March 1, 1944, in which he forfeited all unused leave subsequent to January 31, 1944, and fixed the date of his retirement as of February 1, 1944, and (2) the

refunding by his estate to the Treasury Department of the salary payments made to Mr. Slocum subsequent to January 31, 1944.

Further statements contained in the next to the last paragraph of Mr. Mitchell's letter indicate that he fears that favorable action on H. R. 1315 would open the way for numerous other similar claims of equal merit. In this connection, I desire to refer to H. R. 1396, Seventy-ninth Congress, Private Law 41, chapter 73, first session, which was approved April 17, 1945, and is covered by Senate Report No. 165, Calendar No. 163. That bill or act for the relief of Anne Loacker was essentially identical in its provisions to H. R. 1315, to which President Mitchell objects. A copy of that act and the report of the Senate Committee on Claims on it are attached. On pages 2 and 3 of the report, President Mitchell says in the next to the last paragraph of his letter: "It may be that this is a case where special legislation is warranted and the Commission offers no objection to the bill, should Congress decide the enactment of the law is justified." As opposed to that statement and hardly in keeping with it, President Mitchell in his letter of May 29, 1947, to Hon. Earl C. Michener states that "The Commission has consistently recommended against the enactment of private relief legislation which would grant annuity benefits in a particular case to which other persons similarly situated are not entitled." Evidently President Mitchell, in the Slocum case, is not inclined to consider the injustices that arose in that case because of the actions of the Commission in denying the War Food Administration and the Department of Agriculture the right to employ proper procedures in completing their records in accordance with the amendment Mr. Slocum filed to this application for retirement and the proper refunding of salary payments made to him subsequent to the date (January 31, 1944) fixed by his amended application as the date of his last day of service. It is for the purpose of correcting these injustices that H. R. 1315 was prepared and is now before the House Judiciary Committee.

The Anne Loacker case is very similar and closely identical to the Slocum case in certain respects. In both cases it is apparent that the administrative procedures employed under the Federal Employees' Retirement Act are at fault and thereby similar injustices in each case inevitably resulted. In the Loacker case, certain procedures were fraught with pure carelessness and possible inefficiency in the Retirement Section of the Railway Mail Service of the Post Office Department. In the Slocum case, the retirement clerk of the War Food Administration was advised by the United States Civil Service Commission to cancel Mr. Slocum's amendment to his application for retirement in which he waived his accrued leave subsequent to January 31, 1944, and fixed his date of retirement as of February 1. 1944. Also, the Department of Agriculture was advised by the United States Civil Service Commission that its records should not be completed and corrected by granting proper credit for refunds made to the United States Treasury on the salary payments made to Mr. Slocum subsequent to January 31, 1944. As the result of these advises, the United States Civil Service Commission created certain technical conditions which it employed as a basis for rejection of the application for retirement filed by Mr. Slcoum. It also, for the same reasons, rejected the claim of Mr. Slocum's widow, Mrs. Mabel Í. Slocum, to joint and survivorship annuity.

The employment of such procedures by the United States Civil Service Commission are highly intolerable, unwarranted, and unjustified. They result in inevitable injustices. When agencies of the Government refuse to correct their obvious errors, it is necessary and desirable to correct the injustices by remedial legislation such as is proposed in H. R. 1315. In the present case, it is highly desirable and patently appropriate and proper that favorable action be taken by the House Judiciary Committee on H. R. 1315 and that it be enacted into law. Mr. Sasscer, you have been very kind in this matter. H. R. 1315 should and must be passed in order that justice may be done. It will therefor be appreciated if you will refer a copy of this letter to Hon. Earl C. Michener, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, with such other appropriate information and presentations as are pertinent and proper.

Yours sincerely,