C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 315—CAREER AND CAREER-CONDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT › Subpart I—Probation on Initial Appointment to a Supervisory or Managerial Position

5 C.F.R. § 315.908

Appeals

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

(a) An employee who, in accordance with the provisions of this subpart, is assigned to a nonmanagerial or nonsupervisory position, has no appeal right.

(b) An employee who alleges that an agency action under this subpart was based on partisan political reasons or marital status may appeal to the Office of Personnel Management using the procedures in 5 CFR part 751.

[44 FR 44811, July 31, 1979, as amended at 91 FR 49111, Aug. 3, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Frank K. Kotarski v. V.L. Cooper, A.E. Navarro, W.J. Tinston, J.H. Kirkpatrick, Naval Air Rework Facility, Capt. P.A. Monroe, 799 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frank K. Kotarski v. V.L. Cooper, A.E. Navarro, W.J. Tinston, J.H. Kirkpatrick, Naval Air Rework Facility, Capt. P.A. Monroe, 799 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 (b). Kotarski did attempt such an appeal, apparently on the theory that his privacy claim might be one of “marital status,” but the Board held that it was without jurisdiction over his appeal.”
Mouton-Miller v. MSPB, 985 F.3d 864 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “Mouton-Miller to show that her demotion was “based on partisan political affilia- tion or marital status” if she sought to come within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 (b). J.A. 90. Ms. Mouton-Miller responded that she was not alleging that her demotion was…”
Frank K. Kotarski v. V.L. Cooper, A.E. Navarro, W.J. Tinston, J.H. Kirkpatrick, Naval Air Rework Facility, Capt. P.A. Monroe, 866 F.2d 311 (9th Cir. 1989). “See 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 (b). Similarly, probationary employees may submit a complaint to the Special Counsel of the Board regarding “prohibited personnel practices,” which includes reprisals against “whistleblowers.”
Currie v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 679 F. App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “The administrative judge (“AJ”) issued an order requesting Currie to show that the Board had jurisdiction over his appeal, particularly in view of 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 (2015). R.A. 43. Currie responded that the Board had jurisdiction because he satisfied the definition of…”
James Collins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 675 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “The administrative judge pointed out: According to the regulations at 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 , an employee who is returned to his former position after failing to satisfactorily complete his supervisory probationary period has no appeal right to the Board unless he alleges that the…”
Perkins v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 534 F. App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Perkins had failed to establish that he was demoted due to “partisan politics” or *989 “marital status” as required by 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 . Initial Decision at 2-3.”
Koller v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 250 F. App'x 312 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 7512 (C); 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 (a). There are two types of probationary periods in the competitive service.”
Michael A. Currie, Jr. v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2016). “210 , ¶ 7; 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 . The appellant has not alleged that the agency reassigned him on the basis of partisan political reasons or marital status.”
Kerwin M. Smith v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2016). “210 , ¶ 7 (2012); 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 . The appellant has not alleged, either below or on review, that his demotion from the Supervisory Physical Security Specialist during his probationary period was based on his partisan political affiliation or marital status.”
Cynthia White v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., No. DC-315I-16-0852-I-1 (MSPB May 19, 2022). “, that she was not serving in a supervisory probationary period or that she was entitled to the limited right of appeal set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 (b). IAF, Tab 2. In response, the appellant asserted that: (1) nothing required the agency to advise her of a requirement for…”
James Kelly v. Dep't of Def., No. DC-315I-19-0273-I-1 (MSPB Mar. 8, 2024). “651 , 656 (1996); 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 ; see 5 U.S.C § 7512(C).”
Carlo Jimenez v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. DA-315I-23-0199-I-1 (MSPB June 25, 2024). “210 , ¶ 7; 5 C.F.R. § 315.908 . ¶7 When the facts suggest that an appellant would have been a probationary supervisor at the time of the alleged reduction in grade or pay, to establish chapter 75 jurisdiction, he must show that either (1) he was not required to serve a…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
5 C.F.R. § 315.908(b): 2 cases
Desmond v. Dept. of Def., No. 92-2201 (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 1993).
Desmond v. Dept. of Def., No. 92-2201 (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 1993).
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.