- Military Law
- Medical Evaluation Boards
- USERRA
- Military Leave “Butterbaugh” Claim
- AWOL or Military Deserter
- Court Martial / UCMJ Representation
- Article 15
- Article 32
- Correction of Military Records
- Military-Related Mesothelioma
- General Officer Representation
- Spice Court Martial Cases
- Military Appeals
- ROTC and Military Academy Disenrollment
- Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
- Military Bases
- Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
- Camp Lejeune
- Travis Air Force Base
- Fort Belvoir
- Fort Benning
- Fort Bragg
- Fort Drum
- Fort Hood
- Naval Station Norfolk
- Naval Base San Diego
- Eglin Air Force Base
- Joint Base Langley-Eustis
- Joint Base San Antonio
- Hurlburt Field
- Joint Base Charleston
- Naval Air Station Fallon
- Marine Corps Base Quantico
- Joint Base Andrews
- Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst
MSPB Butterbaugh Background

A Federal Appeals Court in Butterbaugh v. Department of Justice, 336 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003); has ruled that the Justice Department which was following OPM rules, improperly charged employees for military leave prior to 2000.
Under 5 U.S.C. §6323(a)(1), federal employees who are reservists are allowed “15 days” of annual paid leave for reserve or National Guard training. (The Court used the terms reservist and reserve training to include National Guard members and their obligations.) The petitioners in this case are full-time employees of the Justice Department, Bureau of Prisons at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loretto , PA.
Prior to 2000, the Justice Department, as had other federal agencies, included days employees were not scheduled to work but would be at reserve training when calculating how much leave an employee used. For example, the Court noted that “an employee (with a Monday-Friday workweek) attending reserve training from one Friday through the next would be charged for eight days of military leave, even though the employee was absent for only six workdays.” The Court also noted that this policy was applied unevenly, in that non workdays at the beginning or the end of military leave were not counted, but non workdays that fell during the military leave were counted. Under the example above, an employee whose workweek ran Thursday to Monday had more leave counted against him than an employee whose workweek ran Monday to Friday.
In 2000, Congress amended subsection 6323(a)(3) which sets forth the minimum charge for leave. Subsequently, the Office of Personnel Management “determined that, in light of the new subsection…§6323(a)(1) could no longer be interpreted to charge non-workdays against federal employees’ military leave.”
Petitioners filed claims with the Merit System Protection Board claiming that, because of the calculations of military leave, they were forced to use vacation or unpaid leave in order to meet their reserve training obligations. They argued that the Justice Department’s policy violated the 1994 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act “by denying them a benefit of employment based on their military service.”
Based on its interpretation of the statute, MSPB ruled that the Justice Department had properly calculated the four employees’ military leave and that petitioners were not denied a benefit of their employment. In its ruling, MSPB concluded that Congress had intended to count calendar days against the 15 day allowance, not just workdays.
In a ruling dated July 24, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the MSPB’s decision. The Court ruled that agencies should have interpreted the statute to allow 15 workdays of leave for reserve training. The Court stated that “[a]s a general matter, employees are not accountable to their employers for time that are not required to work…[there is] no reason why federal employees need military leave for days on which they are not scheduled to work.”
MSPB had argued that Congress knew or should have known how agencies were applying the requirements of the statutes and because Congress did not amend the statute, it must have therefore approved of its application. The Court disagreed with this contention, stating “…congressional inaction is perhaps the weakest of all tools for ascertaining legislative intent, and courts are loath to presume congressional endorsement unless the issue plainly has been the subject of congressional attention.”
The Court reversed the MSPB’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. One Justice dissented in a separate ruling.
“Very Familiar With Military Law” – S.D.
“Mr. Rinckey was a life saver. I really gave up that there were no lawyers out there that were familiar with military regulations. Greg was very familiar with military law and was very good keeping me informed with his phone …
“Thank You!” – M.H.
“Thank you for all that you do for National Guard issues!” - M.H.
“Most Amazing Attorneys in the World!” – P.K.
“Non-judgmental, efficient, professional, personable, most amazing attorneys in the world! This is my first experience with attornies and I know in my heart I got the best ones! I do have bragging rights! Keep fighting the good fight!!!” - P.K. on …
Read All
Fired Reservist Sues Former Employer

A Marine Corps Reservist who just shipped out for boot camp is suing his former employer for allegedly firing him because he joined the military – but his ex-bosses at a Connecticut car dealership say it’s all a big misunderstanding. …
Pilots Could Be Punished After Speaking Up About Deadly F-22 Fleet

Two US Air Force pilots who spoke out against unresolved issues onboard the multi-million dollar F-22 Raptor fleet may face punishment from the Pentagon, even though they are covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act. Despite ongoing reports of malfunctions with …
Washington Area Appointments and Promotions for the Week of May 14

Tully Rinckey of the District appointed Sterling DeRamus of counsel in the military law and federal employment law practice.
Read All
Ask the Lawyer: What Exactly Qualifies as Wrongful Sexual Contact Under the UCMJ?

By Mathew B. Tully While the most serious sexual assault offenses, such as rape and aggravated sexual assault, have captured the most media attention, wrongful sexual contact is actually becoming a bigger problem in the military. In the 2010 fiscal …
Go Back to School With the Post-9/11 GI Bill: A Lawyer’s Story
Originally posted in New York Law Journal. With the last U.S. forces being pulled out of Iraq in December 2011 and troops expected to leave Afghanistan by 2014, over 1 million members of the armed forces will come off active …
Ask The Lawyer: Should I Reject Captain’s Mast For Court-Martial?

By Mathew B. Tully When deciding whether to take a case to court-martial instead of Captain’s Mast, the big question is how hard do you want to fight for your innocence? The next question is do you really want to …
Read All
Veterans’ Employment Issues – Pennsylvania Bar – April 20, 2012

Greg T. Rinckey will be presenting a CLE at the Employment Law Institute held by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on April 20, 2012 in Philadelphia, PA. Greg’s presentation will cover USERRA rights and give an overview to employment attorneys about …

