(a) An employee who requests credit for service under 5 U.S.C. 8336(c) bears the burden of proof with respect to that service, and must provide the employing agency with all pertinent information regarding duties performed, including—
(1) For law enforcement officers, a list of the provisions of Federal criminal law the incumbent is responsible for enforcing and arrests made; and
(2) For firefighters, number of fires fought, names of fires fought, dates of fires, and position occupied while on firefighting duty.
(b) An employee who is currently serving in a position that has not been approved as a primary or secondary position, but who believes that his or her service is creditable as service in a primary or secondary position may request the agency head to determine whether or not the employee's service should be credited and, if it qualifies, whether it should be a primary or secondary position.
(c) A current or former employee (or the survivor of a former employee) who believes that a period of past service in an unapproved position qualifies as service in a primary or secondary position and meets the conditions for credit must follow the procedure in paragraph (b) of this section. Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the request must be made to the agency where the claimed service was performed.
(d) For a current or former employee seeking credit under 5 U.S.C. 8336(c) for service performed at an agency that is no longer in existence, and for which there is no successor agency, OPM will accept, directly from the current or former employee (or the survivor of a former employee), a request for a determination as to whether a period of past service qualifies as service in a primary or secondary position and meets the conditions for credit.
(e) Coverage in a position or credit for past service will not be granted for a period greater than 1 year prior to the date that the request from an individual is received under paragraphs (b), (c), or (d) of this section by the employing agency, the agency where past service was performed, or OPM.
(f) An agency head, in the case of a request filed under paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, or OPM, in the case of request filed under paragraph (d) of this section, may extend the time limit for filing when, in the judgment of such agency head or OPM, the individual shows that he or she was prevented by circumstances beyond his or her control from making the request within the time limit.
Notes of Decisions
Stearn v. Dep't of the Navy, 280 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
· cites it 30× “The memorandum denying coverage began by quoting 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (e), which provides that “[cjoverage in a position or credit for past service will not be granted for a period greater than 1 year prior to the date that the request from an individual is received.”
Louis D. Hall, Sr. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 264 F.3d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 4× “This ruling was based on 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (e), which provides that credit for past LEO service will not be granted for a period greater than one year prior to the date of the employee’s request for such credit.”
Lawrence v. Dep't of Interior, 525 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (b). In 1987, the Civil Service regulations were changed so that the credit for years of firefighting would reach back only one year prior to making such an application.”
Buckley v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (b). 4 For requests from individuals from 1990 until 1993, the employing agency also was required to submit “an advisory opinion to OPM as to *332 whether it believes the individual’s service in the position should or should not be credited and, if it…”
Crowley v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (b). 3 For requests from individuals from 1990 to 1993, the employing agency also was required to submit “an advisory opinion to OPM as to whether it believes the individual’s service in the position should or should not be credited and, if it qualifies,…”
Crowley v. United States, 398 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (a). A plaintiff in the Court of Federal Claims must also show that his or her position is entitled to LEO status by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Franklynn A. Elias v. Dep't of Def., 114 F.3d 1164 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 5× “and also recommending waiver of the one-year application deadline established by 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (e) because Mr. Elias applied for coverage “at the first opportunity” after he become aware of his entitlement.”
Lengerich v. Dep't of the Interior, 454 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“The current version of this provision is found at 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 , and adds that requests from individuals must be “submitted” and “filed” according to certain procedures.”
Buckley v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 174 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (b). 3 For requests from individuals from 1990 until 1993, the employing agency also was required to submit “an advisory opinion to OPM as to whether it believes the individual’s service in the position should or should not be credited and, if it qualifies,…”
Bingaman v. Dep't of the Treasury, 127 F.3d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 2× “The administrative judge denied that motion, holding that the pertinent OPM regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (e), required each of the appellants to make annual applications for LEO retirement credit covering the immediately preceding year.”
Crowley v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 291 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (b). 3 The granting of LEO status entitles the claimant to FLEPRA benefits.”
Mitchell v. Dep't of the Interior, 33 F. App'x 507 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
· cites it 3× “at 13 ; see 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (e). This ruling was based on the administrative judge’s conclusion that Mitchell had not shown that he submitted a valid request in 1977, or that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from making his request by September 30, 1989,…”
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.906(e) — 2 cases
— 5 C.F.R. § 831.906(f) — 1 case
Mitchell v. Dep't of the Interior, 33 F. App'x 507 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“at 13 ; see 5 C.F.R. § 831.906 (e). This ruling was based on the administrative judge’s conclusion that Mitchell had not shown that he submitted a valid request in 1977, or that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from making his request by September 30, 1989,…”
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.