5 U.S.C. § 3317
Competitive service; certification using numerical ratings
A prior section 3317, Pub. L. 89–554,
Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title XI, § 1107(d),
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Raymond G. Lackhouse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 734 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Raymond G. Lackhouse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 734 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “The fundamental error committed by the board was its failure to determine compliance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. §§ 3317 (b) and 3318(b), which require that the appointing authority file with OPM the reasons for a proposed pass over and that OPM shall determine the…”
Gingery v. Dep't of Def., 550 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “" 5 U.S.C. § 3317 (2006) (Historical and Revision Notes).”
Marshall v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 587 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “§ 3318 ; (2) the reconstructed certificate of eligibles must contain at least three names for appointment in order for the appointing authority to validly make a selection for the GS-13 Budget Analyst position under 5 U.S.C. §§ 3317 and 3318; and (3) if the agency wishes to…”
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. § 3317 (a). If a “preference eligible” is on the list, he or she cannot be “pass[ed] over” by the appointing authority in favor of a lower-ranked individual unless OPM, for good cause shown, acquiesces.”
Raymond G. Lackhouse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Internal Revenue Serv., & Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 773 F.2d 313 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Nor was Lackhouse ever determined to be ineligible for further consideration under 5 U.S.C. § 3317 (b) (which calls for three "pass-overs” in favor of a non-veteran).”
Tracy Lee Kendall v. Sec'y, Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 682 F. App'x 761 (11th Cir. 2017). “§ 3318 , it was undisputed that such procedures were inapplicable in this case because Hanby was not certified as eligible for the position on a VRA certificate. As the HR officials explained, the "pass over” procedures did not apply unless two applicants with veterans'…”
Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023). “Under the VEOA, he challenged the determination he was not qualified, dis- puted the qualifications of the applicant who was selected, argued the AJ erred by not requiring the agency to timely provide the list of candidates for the Charleston FOD an- nouncements, argued that HUD…”
Jolley v. Hud (Fed. Cir. 2023). “Under the VEOA, he challenged the determination he was not qualified, dis- puted the qualifications of the applicant who was selected, argued the AJ erred by not requiring the agency to timely provide the list of candidates for the Charleston FOD an- nouncements, argued that HUD…”
Demery v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2025). “5 U.S.C. §§ 3317–3318. Case: 25-1157 Document: 52 Page: 4 Filed: 11/04/2025 4 DEMERY v.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2022). “§ 3313 for failing to place his name on a certificate; under 5 U.S.C. § 3317 by failing to provide the hiring official three names for each individual vacancy; and under 5 U.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2022). “The administrative judge addressed this argument below, finding that, even if 5 U.S.C. § 3317 (a) were a veterans’ preference statute, the appellant did not show that the agency violated his veterans’ preference rights thereunder because he was not qualified for the position.”
Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 367 F. App'x 144 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Weed asserts that the Board’s decision was not in accordance with law because the SSA’s reconstruction of the competitive process did not conform to the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 3317 (a). The competitive examination process requires the agency to prepare a certified list of…”
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.