5 C.F.R. § 330.102
Methods of filling vacancies
An agency may fill a vacancy in the competitive service by any method authorized in this chapter, including competitive appointment from a list of eligibles, noncompetitive appointment under special authority, reinstatement, transfer, reassignment, change to lower grade, or promotion. The agency must exercise its discretion in each personnel action solely on the basis of merit and fitness, without regard to political or religious affiliation, marital status, or race, and veterans' preference entitlements.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2026 · leading case: Jose I. Valle v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (MSPB 2016).
Jose I. Valle v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 330.102 . Thus, we find that the appellant’s claim is not one on which corrective action under VEOA can be granted, and we dismiss the VEOA claim, without the requested hearing, based on a failure to state a claim.”
Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023). “3d at 1384–85 (citation omitted); see 5 C.F.R. § 330.102 . Mr. Jolley has not shown a violation on the facts he describes: HUD accepted applications for the positions under both the competitive-examination and merit- Case: 22-2303 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 12/07/2023 6 JOLLEY…”
Sheila Lundlee v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024). “216 , ¶ 7 (clarifying that the right to compete is not limited merely to situations in which an agency elects to use merit promotion procedures, but rather is triggered when an agency accepts applications from individuals outside its own workforce); 5 C.F.R. § 330.102…”
Sherrylyn Mitchell v. Scott Tuner, Sec'y, Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. (D. Maryland 2026). “103 (c)(3)(v) (allowing agencies “at their discretion” to except the reassignment of employees from competitive procedures); 5 C.F.R. § 330.102 (permitting an agency to “fill a vacancy in the competitive service by any method authorized in this chapter, including .”
Steven Tod Baseden v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2014). “5 C.F.R. § 330.102 . The agency has presented a number of documents indicating that the appellant was appointed from a list of eligibles and not reinstated.”
Baseden v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 629 F. App'x 962 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “” 5 C.F.R. § 330.102 (emphasis added). In this case, the agency produced documentary evidence that Mr.”
Troy S. Piirainen v. Dep't of the Army, 2015 MSPB 12 (MSPB 2015). “184 , ¶ 6 (2008) (an agency has the discretion to fill a vacant position by any authorized method); see also 5 C.F.R. § 330.102 (same). OPM’s guidance provides as follows: Ordinarily, an agency may simply appoint any VRA eligible who meets the basic qualifications requirements…”
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.