(a) Satisfactory completion of the prescribed probationary period is a prerequisite to continued service in the position. An employee who, for reasons of supervisory or managerial performance, does not satisfactorily complete the probationary period is entitled to be assigned, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, to a position in the agency of no lower grade and pay than the one the employee left to accept the supervisory or managerial position.
(b) A nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial employee who is demoted into a position in which probation under § 315.904 is required and who, for reasons of supervisory or managerial performance, does not satisfactorily complete the probationary period is entitled to be assigned to a position at the same grade and pay as the position in which he or she was serving probation. The employee is eligible for repromotion in accordance with agency promotion policy.
(c) The agency must notify the employee in writing that he or she is being assigned in accordance with this section.
[49 FR 39287, Oct. 5, 1984, as amended at 60 FR 53505, Oct. 16, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Leonard L. Lisiecki v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 769 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
“§ 4303 (f)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 . The other situation arises under chapter 35 where it is provided that a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (SES) who likewise fails to demonstrate fully successful executive performance is entitled to be placed in a position of…”
Jerry D. Hardy v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 13 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“5 C.F.R. § 315.907 (c) (1993). Hardy’s notice of termination was signed by McKinley on May 4, 1992, and informed him that he would be demoted as of 4:00 p.”
Currie v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 679 F. App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “§ 3321 and 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 (a), and he did not allege that § 315.”
Koller v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 250 F. App'x 312 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “§ 3321 (b); 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 . Instead, agencies must return the first-time supervisors to “a position of no lower grade and pay than the position from which the individual was transferred, assigned, or promoted.”
Katherine Bridgeford v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).
· cites it 2× “IAF, Tab 1 at 6 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 ). Although the Board normally lacks jurisdiction over such actions, there are various exceptions, including if the action was taken for reasons other than supervisory or managerial performance or if it was based on marital status or…”
Carlo Jimenez v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 2× “210 , ¶ 7; 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 (a). A return to a lower-graded position under such circumstances is not appealable as a reduction-in-grade adverse action under chapter 75.”
Michael A. Currie, Jr. v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2016).
“210 , ¶ 7; 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 (a). Here, the agency reassigned the appellant to a GS-7, step 5, nonsupervisory position for failure to satisfactorily complete his supervisory probationary period, returning him to the same grade and step as in the position he held prior to his…”
Cynthia White v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. (MSPB 2022).
“§ 3321 (b); see 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 (a). Employees reassigned under these provisions have no appeal right to the Board unless they allege that the agency’s action is based on partisan political affiliation or marital status.”
James Kelly v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2024).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 315.907 (a). The only basis for Board jurisdiction to review an agency invoking its authority pursuant to 5 U.”
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.