C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 430—PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT › Subpart B—Performance Appraisal for General Schedule, Prevailing Rate, and Certain Other Employees

5 C.F.R. § 430.203

Definitions

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

In this subpart, terms are defined as follows:

Additional performance element means a dimension or aspect of individual, team, or organizational performance that is not a critical or non-critical element. Such elements are not used in assigning a summary level but, like critical and non-critical elements, are useful for purposes such as communicating performance expectations and serving as the basis for granting awards. Such elements may include, but are not limited to, objectives, goals, program plans, work plans, and other means of expressing expected performance.

Appraisal means the process under which performance is reviewed and evaluated.

Appraisal period means the established period of time for which performance will be reviewed and a rating of record will be prepared.

Appraisal program means the specific procedures and requirements established under the policies and parameters of an agency appraisal system.

Appraisal system means a framework of policies and parameters established by an agency as defined at 5 U.S.C. 4301(1) for the administration of performance appraisal programs under subchapter I of chapter 43 of title 5, United States Code, and this subpart.

Critical element means a work assignment or responsibility of such importance that unacceptable performance on the element would result in a determination that an employee's overall performance is unacceptable. Such elements shall be used to measure performance only at the individual level.

Non-critical element means a dimension or aspect of individual, team, or organizational performance, exclusive of a critical element, that is used in assigning a summary level. Such elements may include, but are not limited to, objectives, goals, program plans, work plans, and other means of expressing expected performance.

Performance means accomplishment of work assignments or responsibilities.

Performance appraisal system: See Appraisal system.

Performance plan means all of the written, or otherwise recorded, performance elements that set forth expected performance. A plan must include all critical and non-critical elements and their performance standards.

Performance rating means the written, or otherwise recorded, appraisal of performance compared to the performance standard(s) for each critical and non-critical element on which there has been an opportunity to perform for the minimum period. A performance rating may include the assignment of a summary level within a pattern (as specified in § 430.208(d)).

Performance standard means the management-approved expression of the performance threshold(s), requirement(s), or expectation(s) that must be met to be appraised at a particular level of performance. A performance standard may include, but is not limited to, quality, quantity, timeliness, and manner of performance.

Progress review means communicating with the employee about performance compared to the performance standards of critical and non-critical elements.

Rating of record means the performance rating prepared at the end of an appraisal period for performance of agency-assigned duties over the entire period and the assignment of a summary level within a pattern (as specified in § 430.208(d)), or (2) in accordance with § 531.404(a)(1) of this chapter. These constitute official ratings of record referenced in this chapter.

[60 FR 43943, Aug. 23, 1995, as amended at 62 FR 62503, Nov. 24, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Salmon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 663 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Salmon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 663 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (2011) (second emphasis added).”
Dangfeng Shen Ho v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 96 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “3d at 1452 ; 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 . The jurisdictional predicates of the Whistleblower Protection Act are not at issue here, however.”
Marcia R. King v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 133 F.3d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 . The AJ distinguished this process of communication about an employee’s progress during an appraisal period from a final evaluation and rating of an employee’s performance at the end of an appraisal period.”
Albert J. Lovshin v. Dep't of the Navy, 767 F.2d 826 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “5 C.F.R. § 430.203 . As further explained in the Federal Personnel Manual, at 430-3 (1980), denominating an element “critical” means that “performance below the minimum standard [in a ‘critical element’] requires remedial action and denial of a within-grade increase, and may be…”
Jack C. Stoller v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Sec'y of the Army, 682 F.2d 971 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “” 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (g), (i)(1) (1982); see Federal Personnel Manual § 430 at 430-3, 430-A-1 to 430-A-3, 430-A-10 (1980).”
Florence L. Smith v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 813 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 . However, appeal procedures are not part of the minimum components necessary for a satisfactory appraisal plan.”
Mary L. Wilson v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Etc., Sidney C. Jackson v. Env't Prot. Agency, 770 F.2d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “” 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (1984). In sum, if an employee fails to meet the level of work set forth in a performance standard that specifies in objective terms what constitutes satisfactory performance in a critical element of a position, then the employee is subject to demotion or…”
Appleberry v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 793 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “§ 4301 (“Definitions”); 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (same). It also warned her that, if she did not “maintain acceptable performance in [her] core competencies and performance goals for one (1) year from the beginning of the PIP period,” she might be subjected to “reduction in grade or…”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 767 F.2d 1315 (9th Cir. 1985). “5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (1983). 1 In negotiations with the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), the Union proposed several standards and procedures to be used in establishing critical elements.”
Meyer v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Soc. Sec. Admin., 229 Ct. Cl. 151 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “) 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (i) (1981). [1978] U.S.”
Lawrence D. Baker v. Def. Logistics Agency, 782 F.2d 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “See 5 C.F.R. §§ 430.203 , 430.204(d) (1984). 2 .”
Glenn A. Stankis v. Env't Prot. Agency, 713 F.2d 1181 (5th Cir. 1983). “See 5 C.F.R. § 430.203 (i). The Court of Claims looked, third, to a Senate report on civil service reform legislation, 6 and, fourth, to general congressional intent to infer that governmental supervisors deserve wide latitude in personnel actions.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
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.