5 C.F.R. § 1201.12
Revocation, amendment, or waiver of rules
The Board may revoke, amend, or waive any of these regulations. A judge may, for good cause shown, waive a Board regulation unless a statute requires application of the regulation. The judge must give notice of the waiver to all parties, but is not required to give the parties an opportunity to respond.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 122
cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “The Board has the authority to entertain appeals that are procedurally defective under its own regulations, see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 , but it may not hear a case over which it lacks jurisdiction.”
Norman R. Rowe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 802 F.2d 434 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “22 (b), the presiding official provided Rowe with an opportunity to show good cause for the Board to waive the time limit pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 . In his response, filed by petitioner and his attorney on March 21, 1985, he stated simply that his appeal to the Board was…”
Boyd v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 851 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Boyd relies on the “good cause” standard from 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 , which provides that “[a] judge may, for good cause shown, waive a Board regulation unless a statute requires application of the regulation.”
Herring v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 778 F.3d 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 ; id. § 1201.22(c). Case law, however, provides nonexclusive criteria that may be considered.”
Juanita C. Mendoza v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 966 F.2d 650 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “See also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 (1991) (Board may waive procedural regulation upon showing, of good cause).”
G.K. Phillips v. United States Postal Serv., 695 F.2d 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1982). “5 CFR 1201.12 (1980). The board has held that to establish good cause, the appellant need not show that it was impossible to file timely, only that the delay was excusable under the circumstances where diligence or ordinary prudence had been exercised.”
Perry v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 829 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 ; see also 5 C.F.R. § 1201.”
Wilder v. Prokop, 846 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1988). “As stated in 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 (1980), in effect when Wilder filed: Revocation, amendment or waiver of rules.”
Kathleen Sheeran v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 746 F.2d 806 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 (1984). The excuse offered by Ms.”
Francis X. Downey v. Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster Gen., 160 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1999). “Administrative Judge Lee noted that an Administrative Judge may waive the time limit in an individual ease for good cause, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 (1993). However, an appellant bears the burden of proof on the issue of timeliness.”
Joann Azarkhish v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 915 F.2d 675 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “Alonzo addressed whether "good cause," a more lenient standard, was demonstrated for the untimely filing of an appeal to the Board under MSPB’s regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 1201.12 , not whether petitioner met narrower factual criteria under OPM’s regulation, 5 C.”
Charles Clark v. United States Postal Serv., 989 F.2d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.12 & 1201.22(c). Petitioner bears the burden of establishing good cause.”
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.