The Federal Government will Become America's Model Employer for the 21st Century.
Recruit, Retain and Honor a World-Class Workforce to Serve the American People.
Find out more about Federal compensation throughout your career and around the world.
Staffing to align with your agency's mission
Manage your retirement online.
Human Resources and Security Specialists should use this tool to determine the correct investigation level for any covered position within the U.S. Federal Government.
OPM’s Human Resources Solutions organization can help your agency answer this critically important question.
Developing senior leaders in the U.S. Government through Leadership for a Democratic Society, Custom Programs and Interagency Courses.
Visit this federal site to search for our regulatory notices, proposed and final rules.
See the latest tweets on our Twitter feed, like our Facebook pages, watch our YouTube videos, and page through our Flickr photos.
The content available is no longer being updated and as a result you may encounter hyperlinks which no longer function. You should also bear in mind that this content may contain text and references which are no longer applicable as a result of changes in law, regulation and/or administration.
OPM Contact: Paul Britner
An [agency] employee requests further reconsideration of our settlement denying his claim for availability pay.
The employee asserts that the first reconsideration missed the point of his request. The argument that he asserts was not considered was his assertion that the monthly claim forms and other evidence he submitted established that he was earning administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO) during the fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 94 and, therefore, under the provisions of the law establishing availability pay--which became effective October 1, 1994--that he was entitled to availability pay during the first quarter of FY 95. See 5 U.S.C. 5545a.
However, for the reasons discussed in the initial reconsideration, the monthly claims forms and other evidence the claimant submitted do not establish that the employee received AUO during the fourth quarter of FY 94. Rather, the claimant established only that he worked overtime hours performing duties that qualified for AUO. As noted in the reconsideration, though, the agency chose to pay the employee for those hours worked as irregular overtime, instead of AUO, which was within the agencys discretion.
Therefore, upon further reconsideration, the settlement is affirmed.