5 U.S.C. § 2108a
Treatment of certain individuals as veterans, disabled veterans, and preference eligibles
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2016–2023 · leading case: Marnie Golden v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2023 MSPB 19 (MSPB 2023).
Marnie Golden v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2023 MSPB 19 (MSPB 2023). “3 The statute sets forth an exception to this requirement under 5 U.S.C. § 2108a, which applies when a certification is submitted indicating that the individual is expected to be separated from active duty in the armed forces under honorable conditions no later than 120 days…”
Kevin Wheeler Bell v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “§ 2108 (1)-(2) (referencing exception provided under 5 U.S.C. § 2108a). A person expecting to be discharged or released from active duty under honorable conditions can be treated as a veteran or disabled veteran for the purposes of making an appointment in the competitive…”
Pitt v. Duke (D.D.C. 2021). “First, Pitt argues that the panel “violated well-established merit systems protection law in passing [her] over in favor of white male selectees who are not veterans” because she qualified for veterans’ preference. ECF No. 18 at 16–17.”
Joel Valcin v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2023). “See 5 U.S.C. § 2108a. 3 The appellant has neither asserted nor supplied any evidence that shows the third definition applies to him.”
Yolanda Lewis-Mozejko v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2023). “¶9 Using the method to determine whether a statute or regulation relates to veterans’ preference employed in Dean, several of the other statutes the appellant alleges were violated could be said to stand in some relation to, have a bearing on, concern, and have a connection with…”
Ghidoni v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “defined by section 101(21) of title 38 [38 USCS § 101(21)] at any time in the armed forces for a period of more than 180 consecutive days any part of which occurred during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date prescribed by Presidential proclamation…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 2108a(c) — 1 case
Pitt v. Duke (D.D.C. 2021). “First, Pitt argues that the panel “violated well-established merit systems protection law in passing [her] over in favor of white male selectees who are not veterans” because she qualified for veterans’ preference. ECF No. 18 at 16–17.”
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.