5 C.F.R. § 300.603

Coverage

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

(a) Coverage. This subpart applies to advancement to a General Schedule position in the competitive service by any individual who within the previous 52 weeks held a General Schedule position under nontemporary appointment in the competitive or excepted service in the executive branch, unless excluded by paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Exclusions. The following actions may be taken without regard to this subpart but must be consistent with all other applicable requirements, such as qualification standards:

(1) Appointment based on selection from a competitive examination register of eligibles or under a direct hire authority.

(2) Noncompetitive appointment based on a special authority in law or Executive order (but not including transfer and reinstatement) made in accordance with all requirements applicable to new appointments under that authority.

(3) Advancement in accordance with part 335 of this chapter up to any General Schedule grade the employee previously held under nontemporary appointment in the competitive or excepted service.

(4) Advancement of an employee from a non-General Schedule position to a General Schedule position unless the employee held a General Schedule position under nontemporary appointment in the executive branch within the previous 52 weeks.

(5) Advancement of an individual whose General Schedule service during the previous 52 weeks has been totally under temporary appointment.

(6) Advancement of an employee under a training agreement established in accordance with OPM's operating manuals. However, an employee may not receive more than two promotions in any 52-week period solely on the basis of one or more training agreements. Also, only OPM may approve a training agreement that provides for consecutive promotions at rates that exceed those permitted by § 300.604 of this part.

(7) Advancement to avoid hardship to an agency or inequity to an employee in an individual meritorious case but only with the prior approval of the agency head or his or her designee. However, an employee may not be promoted more than three grades during any 52-week period on the basis of this paragraph.

(8) Advancement when OPM authorizes it to avoid hardship to an agency or inequity to an employee in individual meritorious situations not defined, but consistent with the definitions, in § 300.602 of this part.

[56 FR 23002, May 20, 1991, as amended at 66 FR 66710, Dec. 27, 2001]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: Howell v. Dep't of the Army, 975 F. Supp. 1293 (M.D. Ala. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Howell v. Dep't of the Army, 975 F. Supp. 1293 (M.D. Ala. 1997). “21 Howell’s challenge to the NSA rests solely on 5 C.F.R. § 300.603 (b)(7), which he argues permits advancement beyond what § 300.”

Girdis v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 688 F. Supp. 40 (D. Mass. 1987). “" 5 C.F.R. § 300.603 (a)(4). Plaintiffs did not ask for, and the defendant did not request, a waiver when plaintiffs were hired.”

James Henderson v. David J. Shulkin (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. § 300.603 (a), .604(b) (2017). Kolbe’s resume erroneously, or falsely, listed his highest level of employment as GS‐9 when really he had never surpassed the GS‐8 level.”

Wilson Mathews, III v. Smithsonian Inst. (MSPB 2015). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 300.603 (a), “[the] subpart applies to advancement to a [GS] position .”

Rakhmatulla Asatov v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “¶8 Thus, we find that the petitioner has failed to show that the OPM regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 300.603 (a) on its face requires commission of a prohibited personnel practice or that, as applied, the regulation has resulted in such a violation.”

Stewart v. DVA (Fed. Cir. 2024). “See 5 C.F.R. § 300.603 (b) (“The following actions may be taken without regard to this subpart but must be consistent with all other applicable requirements, such as qualification stand- ards[.”

Schutte v. Dep't of Treasury, 203 F. App'x 338 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Schutte does not address the administrative judge’s finding that she failed to show an update to the original complaint detailing disclosures “F-M”. In his initial decision, the administrative judge noted the lack of a cover letter or certificate of service indicating an update.”

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.