5 C.F.R. § 731.301
Scope
This subpart covers OPM-initiated suitability actions against an applicant, appointee, or employee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1978–2002 · leading case: Maurice M. Larry v. Ray E. Lawler, Leland L. Walton, Jayne B. Spain, Lt. Andolsek, Robert E. Hampton, 605 F.2d 954 (7th Cir. 1978).
Maurice M. Larry v. Ray E. Lawler, Leland L. Walton, Jayne B. Spain, Lt. Andolsek, Robert E. Hampton, 605 F.2d 954 (7th Cir. 1978). “As required by 5 C.F.R. § 731.301 , the Commission conducted a standard background investigation to determine the applicant’s “qualifications and suitability for employment in the competitive service.”
Devine v. Sutermeister, 724 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “appointment obtained through fraud or misrepresentation is voidable at the option of the agency, as 5 C.F.R. § 731.301 (a) (1982) renders every appointment “subject to investigation by OPM” concerning the “qualifications and suitability” of an appointee; (5) public policy…”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 118 F.3d 786 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “5 C.F.R. §§ 731.301 , 731.302. Failure to provide the requested information may result in removal from federal employment.”
Bean v. Dep't of the Air Force, 33 F. App'x 517 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “In any event, the Board concluded that OPM or an agency designee could not have made a suitability determination because section reassignments are specifically excluded from OPM’s investigative authority under 5 C.F.R. § 731.301 . Id. The Board also reasoned that suitability…”
McFalls v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 49 F. App'x 312 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Moreover, as the Board correctly noted, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 731.301 (b) (2000), an employee is subject to investigation during the one-year period after his appointment.”
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.