5 C.F.R. § 330.208

Duration of RPL registration

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

(a) RPL registration expires 2 years from the date of reduction in force separation under part 351 of this chapter, or 2 years from the date the agency registers the RPL eligible because of recovery from a compensable work injury under § 330.206(a)(3)(i) or (ii). An RPL eligible remains registered for the full 2-year period unless the registrant is removed from the RPL for a reason specified in § 330.209.

(b)(1) OPM may extend the registration period when an RPL eligible does not receive a full 2 years of placement priority, for example, because of an agency's administrative or procedural error.

(2) Either the agency or the RPL eligible may request OPM to extend the registration period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The request must describe the administrative or procedural error that caused the RPL eligible to be registered for less than the full 2-year period. OPM may request additional information either from the agency or the RPL eligible in connection with any such request. OPM will notify both the agency and the RPL eligible of the decision to approve or deny an extension request. OPM's decision regarding an extension request is not subject to appeal under § 330.214.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1999–2006 · leading case: Jerry C. Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 440 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jerry C. Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 440 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “While the appeal was pending, the government filed a motion requesting a remand to the Board, so that the Board could address how changes in 5 C.F.R. § 330.208 (a)(3) affected the Board’s jurisdiction over an employee who, like Mr.”

Black v. Tomlinson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2006). “See 5 C.F.R. § 330.208 (a)(1) (RPL registrant “qualified” for a position when she “[mjeets OPM-established or approved qualification standards and requirements for the position, including any minimum educational requirements, and any selection placement factors established by…”

Gregory K. Roberts v. Dep't of the Army, 168 F.3d 22 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Roberts filed an appeal to the MSPB on the grounds that the hiring of the other individual violated RPL regulation 5 C.F.R. § 330.208 (a) which requires the placement of only “qualified” individuals.”

Sturdy v. Dept. Of the Army (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Sturdy urged that it was improper for the agency to use a “well qualified” standard as a selection placement factor under 5 C.F.R. § 330.208 . The AJ found, however, that the Army did not violate Mr.”

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.