For the purpose of this part—
(a) Acceptable performance means performance that meets an employee's performance requirement(s) or standard(s) at a level of performance above “unacceptable” in the critical element(s) at issue.
(b) 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.
(c) Current continuous employment means a period of employment or service immediately preceding an action under this part in the same or similar positions without a break in Federal civilian employment of a workday.
(d) Opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance means a reasonable chance for the employee whose performance has been determined to be unacceptable in one or more critical elements to demonstrate acceptable performance in the critical element(s) at issue.
(e) Reduction in grade means the involuntary assignment of an employee to a position at a lower classification or job grading level.
(f) Removal means the involuntary separation of an employee from employment with an agency.
P>(g) Similar positions mean positions in which the duties performed are similar in nature and character and require substantially the same or similar qualifications, so that the incumbents could be interchanged without significant training or undue interruption to the work.
(h) Unacceptable performance means performance of an employee that fails to meet established performance standards in one or more critical elements of such employee's position.
[54 FR 26179, June 21, 1989, as amended at 54 FR 49076, Nov. 29, 1989; 55 FR 25950, June 26, 1990; 57 FR 23045, June 1, 1992; 57 FR 60717, Dec. 22, 1992; 58 FR 65534, Dec. 15, 1993; 60 FR 43946, Aug. 23, 1995; 85 FR 65982, Oct. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case:
Jones v. Johanns, 264 F. App'x 463 (6th Cir. 2007).
Jones v. Johanns, 264 F. App'x 463 (6th Cir. 2007).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 . As Jones was neither reduced in grade nor terminated, Appellee was not required to follow these procedures.”
Walpin v. Corp. for Nat'l, & Cmty. Serv., 718 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2010).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 . At least one court has held that placing an employee on administrative leave with pay did not constitute a “removal.”
Harris L. Winns v. United States Postal Serv., 2017 MSPB 1 (MSPB 2017).
· cites it 2× “¶12 In OPM’s published response to comments regarding 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 , a proposed regulation pertaining to performance-based actions under 5 U.”
Harris L. Winns v. United States Postal Serv., 2017 MSPB 1 (MSPB 2017).
· cites it 2× “¶12 In OPM’s published response to comments regarding 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 , a proposed regulation pertaining to performance-based actions under 5 U.”
Munoz v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 97 F. App'x 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“The first appeal to be decided was that of George Harris, wherein the MSPB ruled that the SSA did not establish performance standards, as was required by 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 (h), and did not inform Harris of the critical elements of his position, as was also required.”
Eric Cadena v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 3× “§ 4301 (3)); 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 (h) (defining unacceptable performance as “performance of an employee which fails to meet established performance standards in one or more critical elements of such employee’s position”); 5 C.”
Earle v. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (D.D.C. 2026).
· cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. §§ 432.103 (b), (d), 432.104. The regulations also require, for example, development of a performance plan for each employee to be provided to the employee at the beginning of each appraisal period, which will generally last twelve months, id.”
Cruz v. Dep't of the Army, 122 F. App'x 452 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 (b), a “critical element” is defined as “a work assignment or responsibility of such importance that unacceptable performance on the ele *456 ment would result in a determination that an employee’s overall performance is unacceptable.”
Ram K. Tripathi v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin (MSPB 2016).
“2 Title 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 (b) defines “critical element” as “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.”
Kevin Miller v. Andrew Saul (7th Cir. 2020).
“It did not elaborate, but we note that the governing regulation, 5 CFR § 432.103 (e) (which the agreement refers to), defines “reduction in grade” as “the involuntary assignment of an employee to a position at a lower classification or job grading level.”
Kevin Miller v. Andrew Saul (7th Cir. 2020).
“It did not elaborate, but we note that the governing regulation, 5 CFR § 432.103 (e) (which the agreement refers to), defines “reduction in grade” as “the involuntary assignment of an employee to a position at a lower classification or job grading level.”
Ahuruonye v. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2022).
“104 (listing the requirements for “[a]ddressing [an employee’s] unacceptable performance”); see also 5 C.F.R. § 432.103 (h) (defining “unacceptable” performance as “performance of an employee that fails to meet established performance standards in one or more critical elements…”
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.