GovernmentExecutive.com

When a Virginia state court convicted James White Jr., a prison guard, for assaulting his girlfriend, he lost his job because he was no longer authorized to carry a gun.

The Bureau of Prisons fired White in May 2001 because, without a weapon, he would not be prepared to "use physical force, including deadly force, to maintain control of inmates." This was one of the qualifications for his position as a GS-7 level corrections officer at a federal prison in Petersburg, Va.

In an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, White argued that because the state court convicted him of assault, and not domestic violence, he could still carry a gun and perform his job. Chapter 18, Section 922(g)(9) of the United States Code, prohibits people convicted of domestic violence from owning or carrying firearms.

White contended that because he was not married to his girlfriend, the board should not define his attacks on her as "domestic" violence. Also, even though his girlfriend originally charged him with domestic violence, he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser assault charge.

The Merit Systems Protection Board decided that White had committed an act that could be called domestic violence, since he had a "spouse-like" relationship with his girlfriend. Such an act would make it illegal for him to carry a weapon, and would justify the federal prison's decision to fire him.

In a May 12 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the MSPB's decision. Assaults in any type of domestic setting disqualify citizens from carrying firearms, and there was "ample" proof that White assaulted his "long-time paramour," the court said.

If White were to carry a weapon at the prison, he would be committing a crime, according to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, his assault conviction would make it impossible for him to do his job effectively.

James A. White Jr. v. Department of Justice, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (02-3329), May 12, 2003

Day-trippers

The Defense Department did not reimburse travel expenses for three National Guard members sent to retrieve heavy equipment, even though they completed the trip ahead of time.

The three Guard members, based in Smyrna, Tenn., received orders to travel to Brownsville, Tenn., and Winchester, Tenn., to pick up equipment and transport it back to base. They were authorized to travel to each destination separately, stopping by Smyrna in between the two trips, and were supposed to complete the mission within five days.

To complete the job more efficiently, the three traveled to Brownsville and back to Smyrna in one day. They arrived late at night, and two of them who lived more than 70 miles away from the station, decided to stay at a hotel in Smyrna overnight so they could get an early start on their trip to Winchester the next morning.

The Defense Department decided that it could not reimburse the two for their hotel expenses for that night. Instead, the department reimbursed all three Guard members for 75 percent of their meals and incidental expenses incurred during the trip to Brownsville. The three Guard members did not receive a per diem for their second day of travel because the trip to Winchester lasted less than 12 hours. According to the Joint Travel Regulations, employees on travel do not get a per diem for day trips that last less than 12 hours.

In an April 22 decision, the Board of Contract appeals determined that the Defense Department reimbursed the three employees appropriately. The Joint Travel Regulations authorize the department to pay 75 percent of incidental and meal expenses for day trips lasting more than 12 hours, but do not authorize lodging at or near the station. "This is true regardless of any unusual working conditions involved or adverse weather conditions," the board said.

Jerry B. Dulworth, Gary Worrell and Kenneth A. McElroy v. Defense Department, GSA Board of Contract Appeals (16035, 16036, 16037 TRAV), April 22, 2003