C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 351—REDUCTION IN FORCE › Subpart F—Release from Competitive Level

5 C.F.R. § 351.601

Order of release from competitive level

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

(a) Each agency must select competing employees for release from a competitive level (including release from a competitive level involving a pay band) under this part in the inverse order of retention standing, beginning with the employee with the lowest retention standing on the retention register. An agency may not release a competing employee from a competitive level while retaining in that level an employee with lower retention standing except:

(1) As required under § 351.606 when an employee is retained under a mandatory exception or under § 351.806 when an employee is entitled to a new written notice of reduction in force; or

(2) As permitted under § 351.607 when an employee is retained under a permissive continuing exception or under § 351.608 when an employee is retained under a permissive temporary exception.

(b) At its option an agency may provide for intervening displacement within the competitive level before final release of the employee with the lowest-retention standing from the competitive level.

(c) When competing employees in the same tenure group have identical performance credits as calculated pursuant to § 351.503 (as augmented by veterans' preference as described in § 351.504), are in the same tenure subgroup, and have identical service dates (as calculated pursuant to § 351.505) and are therefore tied for release from a competitive level, the agency may select any tied employee for release.

[73 FR 29388, May 21, 2008, as amended at 91 FR 49223, Aug. 3, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1978–2019 · leading case: Michael N. Mervin v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 591 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael N. Mervin v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 591 F.2d 821 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “At oral argument, Mervin also referred to 5 C.F.R. § 351.601 , a regulation of the CSC which he alleged also required that employees with “unsatisfactory” ratings be discharged first.”
Metivier v. Haaland, No. 0:17-cv-02017 (D. Minn. Oct. 31, 2019). “Accordingly, 5 C.F.R. § 351.601 (a) required that Metivier be released before Pfister.”
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.