5 U.S.C. § 3313

Competitive service; registers of eligibles

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

The names of applicants who have qualified in examinations for the competitive service shall be entered on appropriate registers or lists of eligibles in the following order—(1) for scientific and professional positions in GS–9 or higher, in the order of their ratings, including points added under section 3309 of this title; and(2) for all other positions—(A) disabled veterans who have a compensable service-connected disability of 10 percent or more, in order of their ratings, including points added under section 3309 of this title; and(B) remaining applicants, in the order of their ratings, including points added under section 3309 of this title.The names of preference eligibles shall be entered ahead of others having the same rating.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 420.)

Historical and Revision Notes
	5 U.S.C. 856.	June 27, 1944, 287, § 7, 58 Stat. 389. Aug. 14, 1953, ch. 485, § 1(b), 67 Stat. 581.

Historical and Revision Notes

5 U.S.C. 856.

June 27, 1944, 287, § 7, 58 Stat. 389.

Aug. 14, 1953, ch. 485, § 1(b), 67 Stat. 581.

The section is restated for clarity and conciseness. The words “for the competitive service” are added for clarity. Application of this section to the excepted service in the executive branch and to the government of the District of Columbia is carried into section 3320. The words “employment lists” are omitted as included in “appropriate registers or lists of eligibles”.

In paragraph (1), the words “in GS–9 or higher” are substituted for “in grade 9 or higher of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended” in view of the codification of the Act in this title, and, in specific sections 5104 and 5332.

In paragraph (2)(A), the term “disabled veterans” is substituted for “preference eligibles” in view of the definition of “disabled veteran” in section 2108(2).

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 10 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Joyce A.H. KEYES, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Sec'y OF THE NAVY, Et Al., Defendants, Appellees, 853 F.2d 1016 (1st Cir. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

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. § 3313 . In ranking eligibles, OPM does so by aggregate point scores, including allowable preferences and credits for experience.”

Gary Davis v. Dep't of Def., 2022 MSPB 20 (MSPB 2022). “§ 3309 by failing to add the required points for preference-eligible candidates, violated 5 U.S.C. § 3313 by failing to appropriately move 10-point preference eligibles to the top of the certificate, and violated 5 U.”

George Noble v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 876 F.2d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “] Title 5 U.S.C. § 3313 , referenced in section 3315, above, but not a section cited by petitioner, reads: The names of applicants who have qualified in examinations for the competitive service shall be entered on appropriate registers or lists of eligibles in the following…”

Eric Williams v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2022). · cites it 4× “101 (b)(1) by failing to credit him with 10 additional points in accordance with his veterans’ preference; under 5 U.S.C. § 3313 for failing to place his name on a certificate; under 5 U.”

Hunt v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 20 F. App'x 902 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “at 2 , adding an additional complaint that the OPM guidance would deny the veterans’ preference rights provided by 5 U.S.C. § 3313 for internal candidates passing an examination required by 5 U.”

Rakhmatulla Asatov v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2016). “The statutes that the petitioner cites, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3313 and 3317, do not address time-in-grade restrictions, and he has offered no rationale for excluding the application of this neutral eligibility restriction to preference-eligible individuals.”

Jerome Mansfield v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2022). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3313 ; 5 C.F.R. § 332.401 . The appointing authority must make a selection from the highest three eligibles on the list, 5 U.”

Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023). “101 (b); and then citing 5 U.S.C. § 3313 ; 5 C.F.R. § 332.401 ). Under the merit-promotion process, veterans are not entitled to those hiring preferences (e.”

Sutula v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2026). “5 U.S.C. § 3313 . 3 The Board construed the Original SF-50’s refer- ence to a “certificate” as synonymous with a “competitive list of eligibles” or “register.”

Williams v. Dep't of Air Force, 89 F. App'x 721 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “101 (b), and they are ranked ahead of others on lists of eligibles with the same rating, see 5 U.S.C. § 3313 and 5 C.F.R. § 332.401 . II.”

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.