When an agency makes an adjudicative decision under this part based on an OPM investigation, or when an agency, as a result of information in an OPM investigation, changes a tentative favorable placement or clearance decision to an unfavorable decision, the agency must:
(a) Insure that the records used in making the decision are accurate, relevant, timely, and complete to the extent reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in any determination.
(b) Comply with all applicable administrative due process requirements, as provided by law, rule, or regulation.
(c) At a minimum, provide the individual concerned:
(1) Notice of the specific reason(s) for the decision; and
(2) An opportunity to respond; and
(3) Notice of appeal rights, if any.
(d) Consider all available information in reaching its final decision.
(e) Keep any record of the agency action required by OPM as published in its issuances.
[56 FR 18654, Apr. 23, 1991, as amended at 66 FR 66711, Dec. 27, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Mittleman v. United States, 997 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1998).
“was not in effect in 1983, when plaintiff says she was denied employment. Plaintiff cites no C.”
Ramon J. Jeanmarie v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2015).
· cites it 2× “¶12 The appellant argues that, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 732.301 , he should have been given advance notice that the agency intended to withdraw the tentative job offer and an opportunity to respond to the proposed withdrawal prior to a final decision.”
Smith v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 13 F. App'x 935 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” * Smith also contends that OPM’s Federal Investigations Processing Center (“FIPC”) violated 5 C.F.R. § 732.301 by sustaining the RAFB’s objection to Smith’s eligibility without an investigation or the proper documentation necessary for a personnel action.”
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.