(a) Right of appeal. An employee who has been furloughed for more than 30 days, separated, or demoted by a reduction-in-force action taken under this part may appeal that action to OPM.
(b) Burden of proof. The employee (i.e., appellant) bears the burden of proof to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) The timeliness of the written appeal;
(2) That OPM possesses jurisdiction over the appeal;
(3) That the agency failed to comply with an applicable statute or OPM regulation governing reduction-in-force actions under this part; and
(4) That the failure prejudiced the appellant by causing the appellant to be subjected to the appealed action or to lose a materially more favorable outcome under this part.
(c) Exclusive appeal procedure. (1) The procedures in this subpart are the sole and exclusive means of appealing a reduction-in-force action taken under this part.
(2) A reduction-in-force action taken under this part, and any matter relating to an appeal of such an action, may not be raised under a negotiated grievance procedure or contested through grievance arbitration.
(3) Paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section do not preclude an employee from filing a complaint, appeal, or other matter within the independent jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an Inspector General, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service, or the Office of Special Counsel.
(4) A party cannot obtain judicial review of a decision under this subpart.
[91 FR 49263, Aug. 3, 2026; 91 FR 54796, Aug. 25, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Terrie G. Reid v. Dep't of Com., 793 F.2d 277 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
· cites it 3× “§ 3502 in a reduction in force, the Office of Personnel Management has promulgated 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1986). 9 Accordingly, we examine these statutory and regulatory provisions, as well as § 7703(a)(1), to determine whether the Union is, within the intendment of Congress, a…”
David M. Thomas v. The United States, 709 F.2d 48 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Thomas relies on 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1983) 3 as providing the necessary authority for the MSPB to review his case under 5 C.”
Howard D. Cowan v. The United States, 710 F.2d 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 2× “3 to frustrate other APHIS or OPM regulations which permit reductions in force and give affected employees specific, limited rights.”
Michael J. Marcino v. United States Postal Serv., 344 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (2003). The petitioner contends that his assignment to the level 5 position constituted a demotion from his level 6 position.”
Elias Covington v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 750 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“In response to an order to show cause, Covington asserted that his appeal satisfied the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 , that he had been terminated by a RIF action, and that his retirement was involuntary and not of his own choosing.”
Peggy A. Knight v. Dep't of Def., 332 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “The AJ concluded that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Knight’s appeal as a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) action under 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 because Knight was not demoted by RIF action, but voluntarily applied for and accepted the GS-5 position.”
Michael J. Wolf v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 317 F.3d 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 7× “Wolf does not satisfy the conditions of 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 , which limits RIF appeals to employees who are furloughed for more than thirty days, separated, or demoted by the RIF action, we affirm.”
Hayes v. United States Postal Serv., 390 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“The Board’s jurisdiction over RIF-related appeals is provided in 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 , which states that “[a]n employee who has been furloughed for more than 30 days, separated, or demoted by a reduction in force action may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
George Noble v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 892 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
· cites it 2× “In Dodd we held that a preference eligible could appeal to the MSPB on the basis of an alleged violation by the TVA of his retention priority rights as provided by 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1988). Retention rights, however, are separate and distinct from the reemployment rights Noble…”
Michael Carley v. Dep't of the Army, 413 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (2005). But Mr. Carley does not assert that he has been subjected to these actions under the RIF.”
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.