(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the following conditions must be met for an individual to be eligible for disability retirement:
(1) The individual must have completed at least 5 years of civilian service that is creditable under the Civil Service Retirement System.
(2) The individual must, while employed in a position subject to the Civil Service Retirement System, have become disabled because of a medical condition, resulting in a service deficiency in performance, conduct, or attendance, or if there is no actual service deficiency, the disabling medical condition must be incompatible with either useful and efficient service or retention in the position.
(3) The disabling medical condition must be expected to continue for at least 1 year from the date the application for disability retirement is filed.
(4) The employing agency must be unable to accommodate the disabling medical condition in the position held or in an existing vacant position.
(5) An application for disability retirement must be filed with the employing agency before the employee or Member separates from service, or with the former employing agency or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) within 1 year thereafter. This time limit can be waived only in certain instances explained in § 831.1204.
(b) A National Guard technician who is retiring under the special provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8337(h) is not required to meet the conditions given in paragraphs (a) (2), (3), and (4) of this section. Instead, the individual must be disabled for membership in the National Guard or for the military grade required to hold his or her position and meet the other eligibility requirements under 5 U.S.C. 8337(h)(2).
[58 FR 49179, Sept. 22, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 17049, Apr. 8, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Otto H. Lizut v. Dep't of the Army, 717 F.2d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Geckle presented information about petitioner to an agency panel as required by 5 CFR 831.1203(a) (1979). After considering reports on petitioner’s conduct, a psychiatrist on the panel concluded that petitioner was not well or behaving in a normal fashion.”
Holmes-Martin v. Leavitt, 569 F. Supp. 2d 184 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203 (a)(l)-(5). One of these conditions requires that “[t]he employing agency must be unable to accommodate the disabling medical condition in the position held or in an existing vacant position.”
Bruce A. Bracey v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 236 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 831.1203 (a). The regulation defines “accommodation” to mean “an adjustment made to an employee’s job or work environment that enables the employee to perform the duties of the position,” and it defines “useful and efficient service” to mean “acceptable performance of…”
Brenneman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 439 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“§ 8337 (a) and 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203 (a) as setting forth the standard for proving entitlement to disability retirement.”
Peele v. United States, 3 Cl. Ct. 419 (Ct. Cl. 1983).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. 831.1203(a)(1) (1978) (emphasis added).”
James H. Turner v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 707 F.2d 1499 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
“The Chavez decision, moreover, is consistent with OPM’s general recognition that an employee may be disabled within the meaning of 5 U.”
Rodgers v. Lehman, 869 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1989).
“The government denies that the OPM directive is binding but agrees that federal agencies are required by 5 C.F.R. Section 831.1203(b) to advise employees of their "possible eligibility for a disability re *259 tirement.”
Solomon v. Vilsack, 656 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2009).
“The plaintiff in Ameson applied for benefits under the Civil Service Retirement System ("CSRS”), the federal employees’ retirement system that preceded FERS. CSRS, like FERS, is only available if "[t]he employing agency [is] unable to accommodate the disabling medical condition…”
Sokoloff v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 140 (Ct. Cl. 1983).
“419, 422 (1983) quoting 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203 (c)(1) (1978). The focus of attention in this regard must rest on what the agency knew at the time of the decision in issue and the reasonableness of its action in light of that knowledge.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203(a) — 1 case
Otto H. Lizut v. Dep't of the Army, 717 F.2d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“Geckle presented information about petitioner to an agency panel as required by 5 CFR 831.1203(a) (1979). After considering reports on petitioner’s conduct, a psychiatrist on the panel concluded that petitioner was not well or behaving in a normal fashion.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203(a)(1) — 1 case
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203(b) — 2 cases
Rodgers v. Lehman, 869 F.2d 253 (4th Cir. 1989).
“The government denies that the OPM directive is binding but agrees that federal agencies are required by 5 C.F.R. Section 831.1203(b) to advise employees of their "possible eligibility for a disability re *259 tirement.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203(c) — 2 cases
Otto H. Lizut v. Dep't of the Army, 717 F.2d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“Geckle presented information about petitioner to an agency panel as required by 5 CFR 831.1203(a) (1979). After considering reports on petitioner’s conduct, a psychiatrist on the panel concluded that petitioner was not well or behaving in a normal fashion.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203(c)(1) — 1 case
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.1203(c)(2) — 1 case
Otto H. Lizut v. Dep't of the Army, 717 F.2d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
“Geckle presented information about petitioner to an agency panel as required by 5 CFR 831.1203(a) (1979). After considering reports on petitioner’s conduct, a psychiatrist on the panel concluded that petitioner was not well or behaving in a normal fashion.”
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.