(a) OPM will notify the applicant, appointee, or employee (hereinafter, the “respondent”) in writing of the proposed action, the charges against the respondent, and the availability of review, upon request, of the materials relied upon. The notice will set forth the specific reasons for the proposed action and state that the respondent has the right to answer the notice in writing. The notice will further inform the respondent of the time limit for the answer as well as the address to which an answer must be made.
(b) The notice will inform the respondent that he or she may be represented by a representative of the respondent's choice and that if the respondent wishes to have such a representative, the respondent must designate the representative in writing.
(c) OPM will serve the notice of proposed action upon the respondent by mail, secure email, or hand delivery no less than 30 days prior to the effective date of the proposed action to the respondent's last known residence or duty station.
(d) If the respondent encumbers a position covered by this part on the date the notice is served, the respondent is entitled to be retained in a pay status during the notice period.
(e) OPM will send a copy of the notice to any employing agency that is involved.
[73 FR 20154, Apr. 15, 2008, as amended at 89 FR 102696, Dec. 18, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Doe v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 483 F. Supp. 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
“Defendants’ Memorandum I at 4; see 5 C.F.R. § 731.302 (1977). 30 This is not a case, therefore, where the government’s interest measured by the “fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional .”
Bruce C. Scott v. John W. MacY Jr., Chairman, United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 349 F.2d 182 (D.C. Cir. 1965).
“§ 652 (1958), regarding procedural requirements for removal or suspension from classified civil service; 5 C.F.R. § 731.302 (a), that after one *184 year, an appointee may be removed for reasons which would originally have disqualified him from appointment “only on the basis of…”
Devine v. Sutermeister, 724 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, OPM’s regulations provide for the normal procedural safeguards under the CSRA when an employee is removed for intentional false statements, whether the action is initiated by OPM, 5 C.F.R. § 731.302 (b), or the agency, 5 C.”
Clarry v. United States, 85 F.3d 1041 (2d Cir. 1996).
“The plaintiffs received sufficient due process in the course of their discharge proceedings, see 5 C.F.R. § 731.302 *1047 (1984) (providing notice and opportunity to be heard); 5 C.”
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.