Precedent-Setting Case on Military Reservists’ Rights An Army reserve officer and Iraq War veteran has reached an unprecedented settlement with the Department of Homeland Security after he said DHS barred him from returning to his civilian job as a contractor. Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, a reservist is entitled to get his civilian job back after he is released from active duty. Brig. Gen. Michael J. Silva worked for SPS Consulting LLC, which had a contract with DHS’s Customs and Border Protection agency in Lorton, VA. Silva was a financial manager at CPB before he was called to active military duty in 2006. When he was released from active duty the next year, he told SPS he was ready to reclaim his civilian job. However, SPS informed him that Customs and Border Protection would not take him back. According to documents in the case, CPB’s contracting officer technical representative told SPS that the agency was satisfied with its current financial manager and would “cancel the contract” if a change was made. In light of that, Silva filed an administrative appeal claiming that he should be considered a government employee and DHS was violating his rights as a veteran. An administrative judge dismissed the case, but the Merit Systems Protection Board overturned that ruling in September and ordered a new hearing. The Board said a contractor could be considered a federal employee “depending on the degree of control the agency exercised over [the person’s] reemployment.” The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which represented Silva, said it was the first time the Board had recognized that possibility. However, the Board added, “We emphasize that the government will not automatically be deemed to be the ‘employer’ of all contractor personnel.” The Office of Special Counsel announced in December that Silva and DHS had agreed to settle the case. Terms of the settlement are confidential. The Special Counsel said, “Federal agencies should take note of the [Merit Systems Protection Board’s] decision, which subjects them to potential liability if they interfere with the reemployment rights of Guard and Reserve members who work as civilian government contractors, even though such individuals are not government employees in the traditional sense.”