5 C.F.R. § 531.404

Earning within-grade increase

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

An employee paid at less than the maximum rate of the grade of his or her position shall earn advancement in pay to the next higher step of the grade or the next higher rate within the grade (as defined in § 531.403) upon meeting the following three requirements established by law:

(a) The employee's performance must be at an acceptable level of competence, as defined in this subpart. To be determined at an acceptable level of competence, the employee's most recent rating of record (as defined in § 430.203 of this chapter) shall be at least Level 3 (“Fully Successful” or equivalent).

(1) When a within-grade increase decision is not consistent with the employee's most recent rating of record a more current rating of record must be prepared.

(2) The rating of record used as the basis for an acceptable level of competence determination for a within-grade increase must have been assigned no earlier than the most recently completed appraisal period.

(b) The employee must have completed the required waiting period for advancement to the next higher step of the grade of his or her position.

(c) The employee must not have received an equivalent increase during the waiting period.

[51 FR 8420, Mar. 11, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 65536, Dec. 15, 1993; 60 FR 43948, Aug. 23, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Robinson v. Duncan, 775 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D.D.C. 2011).
Robinson v. Duncan, 775 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 5335 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 (a). This is determined by reference to an employee’s most recent rating of record.”
Brookens v. Solis, 616 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2009). “5 C.F.R. § 531.404 (a); see also 5 U.S.C.”
Berry v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 750 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “§ 5335 (a); 5 C.F.R. §§ 531.404 -.405. Civilian employment in any branch of the federal government is considered creditable service for purposes of determining whether an employee has completed the appropriate waiting period.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 618 F. Supp. 1254 (D.D.C. 1985). “See 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 (1984) ). There is no inconsistency between the statute and the regulation.”
Warren v. Pon, 304 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “See 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 (a) ; see also Def.'s Mem.”
Effie Ann Romane v. Def. Contract Audit Agency, 760 F.2d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “§ 5335 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 . In this case, the agency must prove by substantial evidence that appellant’s performance was not of such a level and that it, therefore, properly denied her within-grade increase.”
Donna Parrish v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2026). · cites it 4× “5 C.F.R. § 531.404 (a). The agency bears the burden of proof, and its WIGI denial may be sustained only if it is supported by substantial evidence.”
Curtis Kibler v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 5335 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 . To be performing at an ALOC, the employee’s most recent rating of record must be at least fully successful or equivalent.”
Kerwin M. Smith v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 5335 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 . As a GS‑13 Step 1 employee, the appellant was required to complete a 52‑week waiting period to be eligible for a WIGI in the Supervisory Physical Security Specialist position.”
Robinson v. Spellings (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 5335 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 531.404 (a). This is determined by reference to 12 an employee’s most recent rating of record.”
Ram K. Tripathi v. Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin (MSPB 2016). “§ 5335 (a) (an employee is entitled to a periodic step increase so long as he or she has completed the applicable waiting period, has not received an equivalent increase in his or her rate of basic pay during the waiting period, and is performing at an acceptable level of…”
Joseph Thomas Sixeas v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2016). “§§ 5335 (a)(1), 5336(b); 5 C.F.R. §§ 531.404 (b), 531.405(a)(1)(i), (b)(2).”
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.