5 U.S.C. § 3311
Preference eligibles; examinations; crediting experience
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
The words “for the competitive service” are added after “examinations” for clarity. Application of this section to the excepted service in the executive branch and to the government of the District of Columbia, as provided in former section 858, is carried into section 3320.
In paragraph (1), the words “service in the armed forces” are substituted for “in the military or naval service of the United States” on authority of the Act of July 26, 1947, ch. 343, § 305(a), 61 Stat. 508. The word “actual” is omitted as surplusage.
In paragraph (2), the words “material to the position for which examined” are substituted for “valuable” for clarity.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Riller v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 818 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Riller v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 818 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “He attributes the non-selection to failure of the FDIC to fully consider his work *1363 experience under 5 U.S.C. § 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d).”
Cyril Oram v. Dep't of the Navy, 2022 MSPB 30 (MSPB 2022). “Kerner’s request for corrective action, he appealed to the Federal Circuit arguing that his employing agency violated his rights by denying him the opportunity to compete for the positions based on the agency ’s failure to credit his military and non-Federal civil service, as…”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 573 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Kirkendall argued to the board that the agency’s practice of ignoring the military documents violated 5 U.S.C. § 3311 (2), which states that a preference eligible (such as Mr.”
Joyce A.H. KEYES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Sec'y OF THE NAVY, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees, 853 F.2d 1016 (1st Cir. 1988). “5 U.S.C. § 3311 . Once the register is constituted, OPM “shall certify enough names from the top of the .”
Crowley v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 415 (Ct. Cl. 1975). “387 (codified in scattered sections of Title 5, United States Code), among other things, accords veterans special point and service credit preferences in civil service entrance and other examinations, 5 U.S.C. § 3311 ; waives age and physical requirements, wherever possible, for…”
Lazaro v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 666 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “302 (d); see also 5 U.S.C. § 3311 (“In examinations for the competitive service in which experience is an element of qualification, a preference eligible is entitled to credit .”
Jones v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 640 F. App'x 861 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Under the VEOA, agencies are required to give a preference-eligible veteran credit for “all experience material to the position for which examined, including experience gained in' religious, civic, welfare, service, and organizational activities, regardless of whether he…”
Brunton v. United States, 518 F. Supp. 223 (S.D. Ohio 1981). “The Act additionally provides a preference in the retention of federal employees. Preference eligible veterans are afforded special procedural and substantive safeguards in removal and other adverse action proceedings.”
Asatov v. Dep't of Labor, 542 F. App'x 930 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “§ 3304 (f)(1), and second, that the DOL failed to give him credit for service in the armed forces in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3311 . The Board held a hearing on September 4, 2012.”
Hunt v. United States Gov't, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “Plaintiff’s Qualificatioiir-Based Claims Plaintiff also alleges that he was more qualified than the individuals ultimately selected for the various positions for which *1055 he applied, and that, in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3311 , Defendant did not allow him to detail his…”
Miller v. Fdic (Fed. Cir. 2016). “He attributes the non-selection to failure of the FDIC to fully consider his work experience under 5 U.S.C. § 3311 (2) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.302 (d).”
Jimmie Miller v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023). “Specifically, he claimed that the agency violated his veterans’ preference rights under 5 U.S.C. § 3311 (2) by failing to consider his material experience as a GS-03 Health Aid when it evaluated his application.”
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.