C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER II—MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES › PART 1208—PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES FOR APPEALS UNDER THE UNIFORMED SERVICES EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT AND THE VETERANS EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ACT › Subpart A—Jurisdiction and Definitions

5 C.F.R. § 1208.2

Jurisdiction

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) USERRA. Under 38 U.S.C. 4324, a person entitled to the rights and benefits provided by chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, may file an appeal with the Board alleging that a Federal agency employer or the Office of Personnel Management has failed or refused, or is about to fail or refuse, to comply with a provision of that chapter (other than a provision relating to benefits under the Thrift Savings Plan for Federal employees). In general, the provisions of chapter 43 of title 38 that apply to Federal employees guarantee various reemployment rights following a period of service in a uniformed service, provided the employee satisfies the requirements for coverage under that chapter. In addition, chapter 43 of title 38 prohibits discrimination based on a person's service—or application or obligation for service—in a uniformed service (38 U.S.C. 4311). This prohibition applies with respect to initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment.

(b) VEOA. Under 5 U.S.C. 3330a, a preference eligible who alleges that a Federal agency has violated his rights under any statute or regulation relating to veterans' preference may file an appeal with the Board, provided that he has satisfied the statutory requirements for first filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor and allowing the Secretary at least 60 days to attempt to resolve the complaint.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Sheehan v. Dep't of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sheehan v. Dep't of the Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “4, 2000) (to be codified at 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 ). We assume, without deciding, that USER-RA claims fall within the Board’s appellate jurisdiction.”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “That subsection, 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 , states that the right to review by the Board in USERRA cases derives from the USERRA statute, 38 U.”
Hill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 484 F. App'x 484 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “§ 3330a; 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (b); Lazaro v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 666 F.”
Midyett v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 594 F. App'x 969 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “§ 3330a and 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (b). Id. at *9-12 . The VA appointed Dr.”
Brasch v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 664 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “, employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment” due to their military service.”
Tootle v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 559 F. App'x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “§§ 4304 (1), 4324(b); 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (a). That Act provides specific rights to workers who have been “denied .”
Gloria Kirk v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024). “§ 4311 ; 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (a). To the extent that the appellant believes her termination was based on such prohibited discrimination, she may file a USERRA appeal directly with the Board or may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor under 38 U.”
Rosado v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 437 F. App'x 891 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (b); Downs v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 110 M.”
Davis v. United States Postal Serv., 487 F. App'x 571 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “§ 3330a(d)(l); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (b) (“[A] preference eligible .”
Gingery v. Dep't of the Treasury, 493 F. App'x 64 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “§ 3330a(d)(a); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2 (b) (“[A] preference eligible .”
H. Anthony James v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2014). “§ 3330a (discussing administrative redress relating to claims of violation of veterans’ preference rights); 5 C.F.R. §§ 1208.2 (b) & 1208.21 (discussing the DOL exhaustion requirement).”
— 5 C.F.R. § 1208.2(a) — 1 case
Brasch v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 664 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “, employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment” due to their military service.”
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.