5 U.S.C. § 3322

Voluntary separation before resolution of personnel investigation

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

(a) With respect to any employee occupying a position in the competitive service or the excepted service who is the subject of a personnel investigation and resigns from Government employment prior to the resolution of such investigation, the head of the agency from which such employee so resigns shall, if an adverse finding was made with respect to such employee pursuant to such investigation, make a permanent notation in the employee’s official personnel record file. The head shall make such notation not later than 40 days after the date of the resolution of such investigation.(b) Prior to making a permanent notation in an employee’s official personnel record file under subsection (a), the head of the agency shall—(1) notify the employee in writing within 5 days of the resolution of the investigation and provide such employee a copy of the adverse finding and any supporting documentation;(2) provide the employee with a reasonable time, but not less than 30 days, to respond in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence to show why the adverse finding was unfounded (a summary of which shall be included in any notation made to the employee’s personnel file under subsection (d)); and(3) provide a written decision and the specific reasons therefore to the employee at the earliest practicable date.(c) An employee is entitled to appeal the decision of the head of the agency to make a permanent notation under subsection (a) to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701.(d)(1) If an employee files an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board pursuant to subsection (c), the agency head shall make a notation in the employee’s official personnel record file indicating that an appeal disputing the notation is pending not later than 2 weeks after the date on which such appeal was filed.(2) If the head of the agency is the prevailing party on appeal, not later than 2 weeks after the date that the Board issues the appeal decision, the head of the agency shall remove the notation made under paragraph (1) from the employee’s official personnel record file.(3) If the employee is the prevailing party on appeal, not later than 2 weeks after the date that the Board issues the appeal decision, the head of the agency shall remove the notation made under paragraph (1) and the notation of an adverse finding made under subsection (a) from the employee’s official personnel record file.(e) In this section, the term “personnel investigation” includes—(1) an investigation by an Inspector General; and(2) an adverse personnel action as a result of performance, misconduct, or for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service under chapter 43 or chapter 75.(Added Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XI, § 1140(a), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2470.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 3322, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 422, related to temporary appointments after age 70 in the competitive service, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–256, § 5(b)(1), Apr. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 191, effective Sept. 30, 1978.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XI, § 1140(b), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2471, provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (a) [enacting this section] shall apply to any employee described in section 3322 of title 5, United States Code, (as added by such subsection) who leaves the service after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 23, 2016].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Ayyakkannu Manivannan v. United States Dept. of Energy

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ayyakkannu Manivannan v. United States Dept. of Energy (2022) ca3 · cites it 2× “He aired this challenge in his whistleblower retaliation action before the Protection Board, which noted that the changes to his Form 50 were outside the scope of those proceedings but could be addressed under a different CSRA provision, 5 U.S.C. § 3322 . See Manivannan, 2020 WL…”

Hugh B. MULLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Manuel LUJAN, Jr., Secretary, United States Department of Interior, Defendant-Ap (1991) ca6 “See 5 U.S.C. § 3322 (limiting federal employment of persons over 70 to temporary positions, repealed by Age Discrimination Act); 5 *212 U.”

Geltman v. Verity (1989) cod “Moreover, in 1978, Congress enacted legislation that expressly repealed and amended certain statutes ( 5 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 8335) that limited federal employment based solely on age.”

Paul S. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. DEVINE, Director, Office of Personnel Management, Defendant-Appellee (1984) ca6 “§ 8335 , which provided mandatory retirement at age 70), which supports an inference that other federal employment acts were not intended to be repealed. Therefore, the O.”

Heagney v. Garland (2025) dcd · cites it 21× “He sued to challenge that notation under various statutes, including 5 U.S.C. § 3322 . The Court previously granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant, dismissing Mr.”

Heagney v. Garland (2025) dcd · cites it 18× “Section 3322 5 U.S.C. § 3322 applies when an agency employee resigns during an ongoing personnel investigation that eventually results in an adverse finding.”

Palmer v. Ticcione (1978) ca2 “§ 8335 (1976) and repealing 5 U.S.C. § 3322 (1976). The 1978 amendments contains several exceptions.”

Josephine M Schiavone v. Department of the Army (2024) mspb · cites it 6× “Except as expressly MODIFIED to vacate the administrative judge’s finding that the appellant failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that she was the subject of a personnel investigation as defined under 5 U.S.C. § 3322 , we AFFIRM the initial decision.”

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.