C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 302—EMPLOYMENT IN THE EXCEPTED SERVICE › Subpart C—Accepting, Rating, and Arranging Applications

5 C.F.R. § 302.302

Examination of applicants

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

(a) Eligibility. An evaluation of the qualifications of applicants for positions covered by this part may be conducted at any time before an appointment is made. The evaluation may involve only determination of eligibility or ineligibility or may include qualitative rating of candidates. If the evaluation involves only basic eligibility, candidates will not receive numerical scores or be placed in quality categories and will be referred in accordance with the procedures described in § 302.304(b)(5). If qualitative ranking is desired, numerical scores or placement in quality categories may be assigned in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section. Each agency shall make a part of the records the reasons for its decision to use ranked or unranked referral and, for ranked actions, the rating factors used. This information about the type of referral used and any rating factors used for ranked actions shall be made available to an applicant on his/her request.

(b) Rating—(1) Numerical rating. Numerical scores will be assigned on a scale of 100. Each applicant who meets the qualification requirements for the position established under § 302.202 will be assigned a rating of 70 or more and will be eligible for appointment. Candidates scoring 70 or more will receive additional points for veteran preference as provided in § 302.201. Numerical ratings are not required when all qualified applicants will be offered immediate appointment. When there are an excessive number of applicants, numerical ratings are required only for a sufficient number of the highest qualified applicants to meet the anticipated needs of the agency within a reasonable period of time. The agency must, however, adopt procedures to ensure the consideration of preference eligibles in the order in which they would have been considered if all applicants had been assigned numerical ratings. An agency shall furnish on an applicant's request a notice of the rating assigned to that applicant.

(2) Category rating. In accordance with 5 CFR part 337, subpart C, an agency must predefine at least two quality categories that reflect the requirements to perform the job successfully and to distinguish differences in the quality of candidates' job-related competencies/knowledge, skills and abilities. An agency may not establish a “not qualified” category. Only those found qualified will be placed in a category. Quality categories must be established and defined by the employing agency prior to accepting applications. Quality categories are not required when all qualified applicants will be offered immediate appointment.

(c) Nonpreference applicants for certain positions. An agency may not consider or rate an application for the position of elevator operator, messenger, guard, or custodian submitted by a nonpreference eligible as long as at least three qualified preference eligibles are available for the position.

(d) Evaluating experience. When experience is a factor in determining eligibility, an agency shall credit a preference eligible (1) with time spent in the military service of the United States if the position for which he/she is applying is similar to the position which he/she held immediately before his/her entrance into the military service; and (2) with all valuable experience, including experience gained in religious, civic, welfare, service, and organizational activities, regardless of whether pay was received therefor.

[55 FR 9407, Mar. 14, 1990, as amended at 90 FR 43144, Sept. 8, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Riller v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 818 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Riller v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 818 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 9× “§ 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d). Mr. Miller holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics and Economics, a- Master’s degree in Economics, and a Ph.”
Lazaro v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 13× “Lazaro claimed that, given his veteran’s preference eligibility, the VA was required to consider those experiences specified in 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d) (2011), one regulation among those implementing the law governing veteran’s preference set forth in Title Five of the United…”
Black v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 19 (Fed. Cl. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 2302 (b), 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 , 5 U.S.C. § 330.705 , 5 C.”
Jones v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 640 F. App'x 861 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Under the VEOA, agencies are required to give a preference-eligible veteran credit for “all experience material to the position for which examined, including experience gained in' religious, civic, welfare, service, and organizational activities, regardless of whether he…”
Miller v. Fdic (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “§ 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d). Mr. Miller holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mathematics and Economics, a Master’s degree in Economics, and a Ph.”
Jimmie Miller v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023). · cites it 7× “§ 3311 (2) or 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d) by not considering or omitting any of his prior experience when it reviewed his application.”
Kevin Burnett v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. (MSPB 2024). · cites it 6× “§ 3311 and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d) to support his argument that the agency failed to credit all of his experience), IAF, Tab 10 at 7 3 Pursuant to 5 U.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2022). · cites it 5× “§ 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d); (2) the agency improperly rated him ineligible or unqualified; (3) the agency violated 5 U.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d) by failing to credit him with all experience material to the position.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2022). · cites it 3× “2009) (explaining that, “[a]t the very least, ‘credited’ must mean ‘considered’”); 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d). The record reflects that the Defense Acquisition University (DAU) hiring panel considered the appellant’s application materials before finding him not qualified for the…”
Lazaro v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 565 F. App'x 900 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 5× “On remand, the Board found that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or the agency) properly considered all of the appellant’s experience under 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d) and correctly determined that he was not qualified for the position he sought.”
Anthony Salazar v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2024 MSPB 11 (MSPB 2024). “§ 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d) by failing to “adequately consider[]” his “experience and work history” when reviewing his application.”
Show all 51 citing cases →
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.