5 U.S.C. § 3341

Details; within Executive or military departments

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

(a) The head of an Executive department or military department may detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department, except employees who are required by law to be exclusively engaged on some specific work.(b)(1) Details under subsection (a) of this section may be made only by written order of the head of the department, and may be for not more than 120 days. These details may be renewed by written order of the head of the department, in each particular case, for periods not exceeding 120 days.(2) The 120-day limitation in paragraph (1) for details and renewals of details does not apply to the Department of Defense in the case of a detail—(A) made in connection with the closure or realignment of a military installation pursuant to a base closure law or an organizational restructuring of the Department as part of a reduction in the size of the armed forces or the civilian workforce of the Department; and(B) in which the position to which the employee is detailed is eliminated on or before the date of the closure, realignment, or restructuring.(c) For purposes of this section, the term “base closure law” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(17) of title 10.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424; Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title X, § 1033(a), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 429; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, § 1056(a)(4), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3439.)

Historical and Revision Notes
	5 U.S.C. 38.	R.S. § 166. May 28, 1896, ch. 252, § 3, 29 Stat. 179.

Historical and Revision Notes

5 U.S.C. 38.

R.S. § 166.

May 28, 1896, ch. 252, § 3, 29 Stat. 179.

The words “Executive department” are substituted for “department” as the definition of “department” applicable to this section is coextensive with the definition of “Executive department” in section 101.

The words “or military department” are inserted to preserve the application of the source law. Before enactment of the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 578), the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force were Executive departments. The National Security Act Amendments of 1949 established the Department of Defense as an Executive Department including the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force as military departments, not as Executive departments. However, the source law for this section, which was in effect in 1949, remained applicable to the Secretaries of the military departments by virtue of section 12(g) of the National Security Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 591), which is set out in the reviser’s note for section 301.

The word “detail” is coextensive with and is substituted for “alter the distribution”. The word “clerks” is omitted as included in “employees”. The words “as he may find it necessary and proper to do” and “from time to time” are omitted as surplusage.

This section was part of title IV of the Revised Statutes. The Act of July 26, 1947, ch. 343, § 201(d), as added Aug. 10, 1949, ch. 412, § 4, 63 Stat. 579 (former 5 U.S.C. 171–1), which provides “Except to the extent inconsistent with the provisions of this Act [National Security Act of 1947], the provisions of title IV of the Revised Statutes as now or hereafter amended shall be applicable to the Department of Defense” is omitted from this title but is not repealed.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2006—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 109–163 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) defined the terms “base closure law” and “military installation” for purposes of this section.

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–106 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–106, § 1033(a)(2), added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title X, § 1033(b), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 430, provided that: “The amendments made by subsection (a) [amending this section] apply to details made before the date of the enactment of this Act [Feb. 10, 1996] but still in effect on that date and details made on or after that date.”

Transfer of Appropriated Funds; Funding of Detailed Employees

For restriction on availability of funds for salaries of employees reassigned on temporary detail basis to another position without independent approval by head of employing department or agency, see section 515(3) of Pub. L. 103–333, set out as a note under section 1301 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 22 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. David Stockman, Dir., Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 732 F.2d 908 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. David Stockman, Dir., Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 732 F.2d 908 (Fed. Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “7 In this instance, there is nothing to suggest that Congress, in enacting 5 U.S.C. § 3341 , supra, governing employee details, wanted to pay illegally detailed employees at the higher rate; on the contrary, the whole tenor of the statute is to cut short those details at the end…”

MacKey v. Shalala, 43 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Maryland 1999). · cites it 3× “In fact, the only basis or explanation that is provided on the Notification for the reassignment is the general authority given to department heads, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3341 , to temporarily “detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department.”

Wilson v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 510 (Ct. Cl. 1981). · cites it 4× “Although not cited by plaintiff, statutory authority for this relief is presumably 5 U.S.C. § 3341 (1970), which limits details to 120 days, and 5 U.”

Salla v. Califano, 499 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ill. 1980). · cites it 3× “The plaintiff claims that his supervisors created this “hybrid” position in order to circumvent the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 3341 1 and HEW personnel regulations.”

Peters v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 373 (Ct. Cl. 1975). · cites it 2× “However, plaintiff claims his extended, overly long detail as Acting Deputy General Counsel violated 5 U.S.C. § 3341 (1970) 4 and constituted an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action under the Back Pay Act, 5 U.”

Salla v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 744 (Ct. Cl. 1981). · cites it 3× “3 He alleges further that this constructive detail violated 5 U.S.C. § 3341 (1976) in that the detail lasted over 26 months.”

King v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 476 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Nothing in the statute governing details, 5 U.S.C. § 3341 , or the Back Pay Act itself required higher pay.”

Alexander Vlahos v. United States, 111 Fed. Cl. 734 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 1491 ; 5 U.S.C. § 3341 (b)(1) (details within Executive or military departments); RCFC 10(a) (complaint caption).”

Rodriguez-Machado v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 845 F. Supp. 2d 429 (D.P.R. 2012). “Part 300 and in 5 U.S.C. § 3341 . See Docket No. 15-5, page 9.”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees, Afl-Cio, Local 1923 v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 796 F.2d 530 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “5 U.S.C. § 3341 (1982). Pursuant to this law, the Comptroller General held in 1975 that employees detailed to a higher classification for a longer period were entitled to temporary promotions with back pay.”

Russell v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 980 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “510 (1981), (no constructive promotion is possible even though an employee, in a manner contrary to 5 U.S.C. §3341 (b), actually was assigned to a higher position); Peters v.”

Brown v. United States, 231 Ct. Cl. 995 (Ct. Cl. 1982). · cites it 2× “Finally, in counts IV and V of his amended petition, the plaintiff alleges he performed the duties of a higher-graded position for more than 120 days in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3341 (1976) 1 and that the civilian personnel officer’s refusal to promote him to the higher-graded…”

Show all 22 citing cases →

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.