An appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible candidate who has been given bona fide consideration by one or more hiring managers for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position (i.e., the same title, series, and grade).
(a) Bona fide consideration. To use this provision:
(1) The hiring manager must review and consider the candidate's application material;
(2) The hiring manager must sign a written statement documenting the candidate received three considerations and recommending the candidate be removed from further consideration for the position(s) being filled due to a documented lack of a specific skills(s) or attribute(s) needed to perform the work of the position being filled (When more than one hiring manager is involved, a hiring manager may include information or evidence from another hiring manager.);
(3) The Human Resources Director (at the servicing personnel office level) must approve the request to remove the candidate from further consideration; and
(4) The agency must provide written notification to any candidate removed under this section upon request by the candidate.
(b) Document the case file. The agency must document in the case file the three valid selections that were made, and the Human Resources Director's concurrence to remove any candidate from further consideration in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) Selection consideration. An agency may use the three considerations provision to remove one or more candidates from further consideration starting with the fourth selection (which may be from the same or different certificates for the same position (i.e., the same title, series, and grade)). The number removed may not exceed the remaining number of positions to be filled as long as bona fide consideration has been given and documented as required by this section.
(d) Inapplicability of the Three Considerations Rule. The three considerations rule does not apply to shared certificates.
[90 FR 43146, Sept. 8, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
“Prew-itt in this case is more aptly characterized as an irregularity in the selection process rather than an application of a specific rule, provision, or policy by the agency. As such, the alleged misidentification is not an employment practice that is appealable to the Board…”
Hannon v. Chater, 887 F. Supp. 1303 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 . He insinuates that OHA manipulates the order in which available positions are filled to increase the chances for selection of minorities and women.”
Kligman v. Internal Revenue Serv., 272 F. App'x 166 (3rd Cir. 2008).
“Under 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 "[a]n appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible [applicant] who has been considered by him for three separate appointments from the same or different certificates for the same position.”
Cotty P. O'Leary v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016).
· cites it 10× “¶3 In January 2012, SSA asked the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to exclude candidates, including the appellant, who had already received at least 3 three considerations from further certification pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 , otherwise known as the “rule of three.”
O'Leary v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 708 F. App'x 669 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Rather, according to O’Leary, Peters performed “merely ‘ministerial’” approvals, J.A. 25, while the actual appointment considerations were “made by various [other] individuals,” J.”
Barkalow v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “2006-3237 3 Petitioner next argues that the SSA violated the “Rule of Three” of 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 when it considered several candidates who were not eligible for veterans’ preference more than three times, but gave only three considerations to candidates who were eligible for…”
Patterson v. Berryhill (W.D. Pa. 2020).
“Plaintiff points to the notation “3C” next to his name for West Des Moines, IA and Morgantown, WV positions, and 5 The “three strike rule,” reflected in 5 C.F.R. § 332.405 , states that an appointing officer is not required to consider an eligible who has been considered by him…”
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.