C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 353—RESTORATION TO DUTY FROM UNIFORMED SERVICE OR COMPENSABLE INJURY › Subpart A—General Provisions

5 C.F.R. § 353.104

Notification of rights and obligations

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

When an agency separates, grants a leave of absence, restores or fails to restore an employee because of uniformed service or compensable injury, it shall notify the employee of his or her rights, obligations, and benefits relating to Government employment, including any appeal and grievance rights. However, regardless of notification, an employee is still required to exercise due diligence in ascertaining his or her rights, and to seek reemployment within the time limits provided by chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, for restoration after uniformed service, or as soon as he or she is able after a compensable injury.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: Marnette Bolden-Pruitt v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marnette Bolden-Pruitt v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2022). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 353.104 . Thus, if the agency failed to notify the appellant of the deadline for requesting restoration, the Board may excuse the delay.”
Flora Askew v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2022). “345 , ¶¶ 22-24 (discussing the appellant’s timeliness burden in a restoration case when it was not apparent the agency notified her of her appeal rights); 5 C.F.R. § 353.104 (requiring an agency denying restoration to provide notice of appeal rights, but further requiring an…”
Charles Swann v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2023). “4 Even if the appeal had not been timely filed, we would consider the agency’s failure to provide the notice of appeal rights required under 5 C.F.R. § 353.104 in determining whether there was good cause for the filing delay.”
Gregory Turner v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2024). “345 , ¶¶ 22-24 (2010) (discussing the appellant’s timeliness burden in a restoration case when it was not apparent the agency notified her of her appeal rights); 5 C.F.R. § 353.104 (requiring an agency denying restoration to provide notice of appeal rights, but further requiring…”
Wade v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 468 F. App'x 980 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Wade was not given proper notice of his appeal rights in 1996 and 1997 as required by 5 C.F.R. § 353.104 . Thus, the Board stated 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.