C.F.R.
»
Title 5
» CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 842—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM—BASIC ANNUITY › Subpart H—Law Enforcement Officers, Firefighters, and Air Traffic Controllers
(a) An agency head's determination under § 842.803(a) (finding that a position is a rigorous position) must be based solely on the official position description of the position in question and any other official description of duties and qualifications. The official documentation for the position should, as soon as is reasonably possible, establish that the primary duties of the position are so rigorous that the agency does not allow individuals to enter the position if they are over a certain age or if they fail to meet certain physical qualifications (that is, physical requirements and/or medical standards), as determined by the employing agency head based on the personnel management needs of the agency for the positions in question.
(b) A determination under §§ 842.803 (b) or (c) must be based on the official position description and any other evidence deemed appropriate by the agency head for making the determination.
(c) If an employee is in a position not subject to the one-half percent higher withholding rate of 5 U.S.C. 8422(a)(2)(B), and the employee does not, within 6 months after entering the position or after any significant change in the position, formally and in writing seek a determination from the employing agency that his position is properly covered by the higher withholding rate, the agency head's determination that the service was not so covered at the time of the service is presumed to be correct. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee was unaware of his or her status or was prevented by cause beyond his or her control from requesting that the official status be changed at the time the service was performed.
[52 FR 2069, Jan. 16, 1987, as amended at 57 FR 32690, July 23, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
Bingaman v. Dep't of the Treasury, 127 F.3d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 6× “” In addition, finding that the DSSAs’ duties do not involve “frontline law enforcement work” entailing unusual physical demands and hazards, the administrative judge concluded that the duties of the position of DSSA “are not sufficiently rigorous that employment opportunities…”
Louis D. Hall, Sr. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 264 F.3d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“In Trivett , the Board held that 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c), imposing a similar time limit on employees seeking LEO service credit through the Federal Early Retirement System, “is not a substantive condition of eligibility for LEO coverage mandated by statute, but instead is a…”
Craig R. Letz v. Dep't of the Interior, 474 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 6× “§§ 8415 (d), 8425(b) (2000); 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (2006). An employee can qualify for the enhanced annuity either (1) by serving in a position that has been approved for firefighter or law enforcement officer service credit (FF/LEO credit), or (2) by applying for enhanced annuity…”
Stearn v. Dep't of the Navy, 280 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“Unlike the analogous Federal Employees Retirement System regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c), which lists as grounds for waiver “that the employee was unaware of his or her status or was prevented by cause beyond his or her control from requesting that the official status be…”
Bert LaCroix v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2024).
· cites it 15× “In so finding, the administrative judge concluded that the appellant had timely filed his request under 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c). ID at 8-10. She also concluded that the appellant proved by preponderant evidence that he met the definition of an LEO under 5 U.”
Lacroix v. Army (Fed. Cir. 2025).
· cites it 6× “LaCroix’s October 2016 email was a timely request for coverage under the governing regula- tion, 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 , and Mr. LaCroix had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualified for cover- age from March 18, 2007, through August 19, 2015.”
Susan L Simpson v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2025).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c). The employee may rebut this presumption by showing that she was unaware of her status or was prevented by cause beyond her control from requesting that the official status be changed at the time the service 4 was performed.”
Letz v. Dept. Of the Interior (Fed. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 5× “The agency noted that he did not meet the six-month filing deadlines set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c) or the special one-time, November 1, 1995, filing deadline.”
Craig Golden v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2022).
· cites it 2× “2 See 5 C.F.R. §§ 842.804 (c), 842.807 (setting forth appellate procedures for retirement eligibility determinations for firefighters).”
Colister Slater v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2016).
“5 ¶4 Under 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c), an employee must file a formal, written request for LEO coverage within 6 months after entering the position in question, or within 6 months of any significant change in the position.”
Suzanne MacMullin v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2022).
“The agency notified the appellant of her right to see k a determination of coverage under 5 C.F.R. § 842.804 (c). Id. at 60-61 . The appellant submitted a request for rigorous LEO coverage, and on February 4, 2021, the agency denied the request.”
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.