5 C.F.R. § 353.107

Service credit upon reemployment

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

Upon reemployment, an employee absent because of uniformed service or compensable injury is generally entitled to be treated as though he or she had never left. This means that a person who is reemployed following uniformed service or full recovery from compensable injury receives credit for the entire period of the absence for purposes of rights and benefits based upon seniority and length of service, including within-grade increases, career tenure, completion of probation, leave rate accrual, and severance pay.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff relies on one of the OPM regulations found in Part 353, 5 C.F.R. § 353.107 (2007), as further authority for that relief.”

Gallo v. United States, 529 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 353.107 . This regulation makes clear that OPM itself understood section 8151(a) to confer separate substantive rights from those afforded by section 8151(b).”

Gallo v. Dep't of Transp., 689 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “Gallo cites OPM regulation 5 C.F.R. § 353.107 , which provides that an employee who is restored after compensable injury is “entitled to be treated as though he or she had never left,” and argues that she is “entitled to both the pay and retirement credit that she would have…”

Cobb v. Prokop, 557 F. Supp. 391 (D. Mass. 1983). “It shall also maintain the necessary records to assure that all such employees are preserved the rights and benefits granted by law and this part.”

Claude E Hudson v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024). · cites it 3× “262 , ¶ 17 (2003); 5 C.F.R. §§ 353.107 , 353.301. OPM has also provided a regulatory right of appeal to the Board for a denial of restoration or an “improper restoration,” i.”

Angel David Morales v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2015). · cites it 4× “§ 8151 (a) and 5 C.F.R. §§ 353.107 , 353.304(a) to support his assertions.”

Juels v. United States Postal Serv., 347 F. App'x 597 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “§ 8151 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 353.107 . The AJ found that all of Juels’s rights and benefits had been properly restored.”

Collette Curry v. U.S. Postal Serv. (MSPB 2026). · cites it 2× “17 , ¶¶ 14-15 (2006); 5 C.F.R. §§ 353.107 , 353.301. OPM has also provided a regulatory right of appeal to the Board for a denial of restoration or an “improper restoration,” i.”

David Shu v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2022). “The administrative judge instructed the agency to: restore the appellant as of March 1, 2009; pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay; provide the appellant with service credit for the entire period of absence, from Dece mber 12, 2003, to November 6, 2010, for the…”

Shu v. Usps (Fed. Cir. 2023). “Shu with service credit (for the purposes of rights and benefits based on seniority and length of service pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 353.107 ) for the entire period of absence, from December 12, 2003 (the date of his removal) to November 6, 2010 (the date he returned to work upon…”

Williams v. Opm (Fed. Cir. 2006). “05-3330 3 Williams nevertheless argues, as he did before the Board, that he is entitled to service credit for the entire period of his separation under 5 C.F.R. § 353.107 , which provides, in pertinent part, that “an employee absent because of .”

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.