5 C.F.R. § 1201.11
Scope and policy
The regulations in this subpart apply to Board appellate proceedings except as otherwise provided in § 1201.13. The regulations in this subpart apply also to appellate proceedings and stay requests covered by part 1209 unless other specific provisions are made in that part. These regulations also apply to original jurisdiction proceedings of the Board except as otherwise provided in subpart D. It is the Board's policy that these rules will be applied in a manner that expedites the processing of each case. It is the Board's policy that these rules will be applied in a manner that ensures the fair and efficient processing of each case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: John Womack v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 798 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
John Womack v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 798 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “The petitioner contends that the Board improperly denied him a hearing on the question whether the time limit for filing his appeal should be waived, and that that denial violated 5 C.F.R. § 1201.11 (1982) and denied him due process.”
John W. Ballard v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 768 F.2d 756 (6th Cir. 1985). “Paralleling § 7701(a)(1), Subpart D, states that “Except as otherwise expressly provided by this subpart, all actions involving allegations of prohibited discrimination shall comply with the regulations regarding hearing procedures set forth in Subpart B of this part.”
Kenneth Loui v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 25 F.3d 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.11 (1993). The regulations also specify procedures an agency must follow when it removes an employee.”
Krueger v. Lyng, 927 F.2d 1050 (8th Cir. 1991). “5 CFR § 1201.11 et seq. The MSPB’s decision is appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”
Edwards v. Crosby, 540 F. Supp. 60 (E.D. Pa. 1982). “IV 1980) (current statute governing appeals and judicial review), and 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.11 -, 118 (1982) (current regulations on adverse actions generally), and id.”
Daniel E. Shipp v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.11 (e). The appellant has not alleged that he received the initial decision more than 5 days after its issuance.”
Karen R. Earle v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.11 (1). Thus, we will consider March 14, 2016, as the filing date.”
Ferrell v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023). “§ 7701 (i)(4); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.11 . Second, there is no evidence of judicial bias or that the administrative judge did not interpret Ms.”
Herlinda Ramos v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2014). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.11 . It is also the Board’s policy that initial decisions in all appeals under 5 U.”
Rakhmatulla Asatov v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2015). “The Board has a jurisdiction to review the OPM regulation under 5 USC 1204(f)(1)(B) and 5 CFR 1201.11. Regulation Review File (RRF), Tab 1 at 5.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.