(a) When an agency head, or his or her designee, issues a negative determination the following procedures are established in accordance with section 5335(c) of title 5, United States Code for reconsideration of the negative determination:
(1) An employee or an employee's personal representative may request reconsideration of a negative determination by filing, not more than 15 days after receiving notice of determination, a written response to the negative determination setting forth the reasons the agency shall reconsider the determination;
(2) When an employee files a request for reconsideration, the agency shall establish an employee reconsideration file which shall contain all pertinent documents relating to the negative determination and the request for reconsideration, including copies of the following:
(i) The written negative determination and the basis therefore;
(ii) The employee's written request for reconsideration;
(iii) The report of investigation when an investigation is made;
(iv) The written summary or transcript of any personal presentation made; and
(v) The agency's decision on the request for reconsideration.
The file shall not contain any document that has not been made available to the employee or his or her personal representative with an opportunity to submit a written exception to any summary of the employee's personal presentation;
(3) An employee in a duty status shall be granted a reasonable amount of official time to review the material relied upon to support the negative determination and to prepare a response to the determination; and
(4) The agency shall provide the employee with a prompt written final decision.
(b) The time limit to request a reconsideration may be extended when the employee shows he or she was not notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it, or that the employee was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from requesting reconsideration within the time limit.
(c) An agency may disallow as an employee's personal representative an individual whose activities as a representative would cause a conflict of interest of position, an employee whose release from his or her official duties and responsibilities would give rise to unreasonable costs to the Government, or an employee whose priority work assignment precludes his or her release from official duties and responsibilities. Section 7114 of title 5, United States Code, and the terms of any applicable collective bargaining agreement govern representation for employees in an exclusive bargaining unit.
(d) When a negative determination is sustained after reconsideration, an employee shall be informed in writing of the reasons for the decision and of his or her right to appeal the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. However, for an employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement a reconsideration decision that sustains a negative determination is only reviewable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
[46 FR 2319, Jan. 9, 1981, as amended at 50 FR 45389, Oct. 31, 1985]
Notes of Decisions
Karl Brookins v. Dep't of the Interior, 2023 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2023).
· cites it 2× “” ID at 3 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (d)). The administrative judge stated that the only exception to this rule is when the employee alleges discrimination under 5 U.”
Gene M. Munson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 318 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “” 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (d). Following the denial of a request for reconsideration, any “appeal [to the Board] must be filed no later than 30 days after the effective date, if any, of the action being appealed, or 30 days after the date of receipt of the agency’s decision,…”
Charles D. Goines v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 258 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulations track and amplify these provisions, 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 , and require that the request for reconsideration be made within fifteen days of the employee’s receipt of a negative determination of performance level, § 531.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Cornelius, 617 F. Supp. 365 (D.D.C. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The rule deleted certain provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically the final sentences of 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (d) and 5 C.F.R. § 536 .”
Brown v. United States, 631 F. Supp. 954 (D.D.C. 1986).
· cites it 3× “She did not appeal for reconsideration as she could have under 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 and under Article 36 of the NTEU pact [hereinafter “NTEU Agreement”].”
Karen Graham-Battle v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 4× “The administrative judge further found that in order to directly challenge a WIGI denial to the Board the appellant must meet the requirements identified in 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (d), which included first seeking reconsideration of the WIGI denial with her employing agency, and it…”
Kartarii Vice v. Dep't of Labor (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 3× “IAF, Tab 13, Initial Decision (ID) at 3-5 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 , an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regulation establishing procedures under 5 U.”
Charise Young v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (a)(1). The time limit to request reconsideration may be extended, however, if the employee shows that she was not notified of the time limit and was not otherwise aware of it.”
Curtis Kibler v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2016).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (a)(1). If the agency affirms its negative ALOC determination on reconsideration, an employee may appeal to the Board.”
Anthony J. Silveria v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2017).
· cites it 2× “§ 5335 (c); see 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (d). ¶12 A bargaining-unit employee who is subject to an appealable action that falls within the scope of the grievance procedure may elect either to appeal the action to the Board or challenge it through the grievance procedure.”
Donna D Parrish v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 5335 (a)(B), (c); 5 C.F.R. § 531.410 (d). An employee is ordinarily not entitled to appeal the denial of a WIGI to the Board unless she first has timely sought and received a reconsideration decision from the agency.”
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.