5 C.F.R. § 302.201

Persons entitled to veteran preference

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

In actions subject to this part, each agency shall grant veteran preference as follows:

(a) When numerical scores are used in the evaluation and referral, the agency shall grant 5 additional points to preference eligibles under section 2108(3) (A) and (B) of title 5, United States Code, and 10 additional points to preference eligibles under section 2108(3) (C) through (G) of that title.

(b) When eligible candidates are referred without ranking, the agency shall note preference as “CP” for preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C), as “XP” for preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(D) through (G), as “SSP” for preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(H) and as “TP” for all other preference eligibles under that title.

(c) When quality categories are used in the evaluation and referral, the agency shall list preference eligibles under 5 U.S.C. 2108(3) ahead of non-preference eligibles in accord with § 302.304(b)(6).

[55 FR 9407, Mar. 14, 1990, as amended at 85 FR 63191, Oct. 7, 2020; 90 FR 43144, Sept. 8, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Guy C. Patterson v. Dep't of the Interior, 424 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Guy C. Patterson v. Dep't of the Interior, 424 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 302.201 (a) (2005). However, not all appointments within the excepted service are made using numerical rate and ranking procedures.”
John W. BLUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sheila WIDNALL, Officially as Sec'y of the Air Force, Defendant-Appellee, 162 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “Section 4414 (c), 5 C.F.R. Sections 302.201, 302.202, 302.304 and 720.”
Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 808 F.3d 497 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “5 C.F.R. § 302.201 (a). If, however, candidates for an excepted service position are evaluated without numerical ratings, the agency can use the veterans’ preference as a plus factor.”
Pulley v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 368 F. Supp. 90 (M.D. Tenn. 1973). “§ 831b], and are not in “competitive service” as defined in said Act.”
Blue v. Widnall, 152 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1998). “Section 4414 (c), 5 C.F.R. Sections 302.201, 302.202, 302.304 and 720.”
Patterson v. Dept. Of the Interior (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 302.201 (a) (2005). However, not all appointments within the excepted service are made using numerical rate and ranking procedures.”
74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,495, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6349, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8795 John W. Blue v. Sheila Widnall, Officially as Sec'y of the Air Force, 152 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 1998). “Section 4414 (c), 5 C.F.R. Sections 302.201, 302.202, 302.304 and 720.”
Joseph Early v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023). “” 5 C.F.R. § 302.201 (b); see Patterson, 424 F.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. §§ 302.201 (a), .302(b). OPM mandates that all agencies follow its excepted-service selection procedures.”
Joe Cox v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2014). “7 In the initial decision, the administrative judge rejected the appellant’s claim that the agency violated 5 C.F.R. § 302.201 , which provides that, when numerical scores are used in the evaluation and referral of candidates, an agency must add 10 points to the score of…”
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.